Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Obama’s Heritage’ Category

GOP Eyes Lightning Strike on Obamacare to Kick Off Trump Era

by Steven Dennis and Billy House

Slim Senate majority leaves little wiggle room for passage
Some Republicans also want to end Planned Parenthood funding
Congressional Republicans are considering a lightning-strike rollback of Obamacare early next year to kick off the Donald Trump era, but first they have to agree on a plan limited enough to hold their caucus together.
Republicans won’t have much room for error to successfully repeal Obamacare, a top campaign promise of Trump and congressional Republicans. Even if they delay the repeal to allow more time to come up with a replacement, there will be pressure to use the legislative maneuver to push through other top GOP priorities, such as defunding Planned Parenthood.
But Senate Republicans would have to keep unified the 52 senators they expect to have when the new Congress convenes Jan. 3.
The Republican plan would take advantage of reconciliation, a budget-related mechanism to circumvent the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and prevent Democrats from being able to block legislation on their own. By striking early, the GOP could set itself up to invoke the same procedure again later in the year on a broader range of targets, including tax cuts.
The quick-strike bill, like one vetoed earlier this year by President Barack Obama, H.R. 3762, would likely set what amounts to an expiration date for the law’s financial underpinnings, leaving Congress to act at a later date on any replacement plan. That’s because more than six years after the law’s passage, Republicans still don’t have a consensus on how to replace Obamacare.
Early Win
But passing something in Trump’s first 100 days would allow Republicans to claim a big win early on, and conservatives are demanding the GOP deliver quickly.
“In order to give a clear and unambiguous message there’s a new occupant in the White House, one of the first things that should be done after the oath of office is passage of a bill through reconciliation repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood,” Representative Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, said Monday in a interview.
Franks, chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, said he worries that some in Congress may seek more time to pass a bill. But he said the bill should be passed “almost the first moment after the oath of office.” Congress needs to send the message that when people vote based on promises made during a campaign, “that their votes will matter,” he said.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters Tuesday at a Washington Post breakfast that the first 100 days of Trump’s administration may include action on an Obamacare repeal, although “repealing is easier and faster” than replacing.
Having a “transition period” after a vote to repeal Obamacare would create a deadline for Congress to pass a replacement, he told reporters later Tuesday.
“If you have a date certain that something is going away” lawmakers will be motivated to pass a replacement, McCarthy said. Democrats who try to obstruct a replacement would risk being blamed for allowing Obamacare to lapse without a new plan, he said.
John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said Monday that a Obamacare repeal is “going to be high on the list right when we come back.”
“It will be early, because we have to get that done,” Cornyn said. “January would suit me just fine.” He said Republicans may use the reconciliation procedure again later in the year to push through other matters, such as a tax overhaul.
‘Does No Harm’
Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, predicted during an interview with reporters that it would ultimately take “several years” to fully move to a new system with less federal control. He said that while Republicans can do some things with reconciliation, they’d ultimately need 60 votes.
“We need to gradually move those decisions back to states and to individuals and do it in a way that does no harm to people today,” the Tennessee Republican said.
“If we want a lasting solution eventually we’re going to have to have 60 votes in the Senate to get it.”
While a lightning-strike bill could be used for other priorities Republicans agree on, House Budget Chairman Tom Price of Georgia predicted in a recent interview it would be focused on something similar to the Obamacare repeal bill lawmakers have already passed because expanding it would require more time for committees to work.
“There is an opportunity there,” said Price, who Trump named Tuesday morning to be his secretary of Health and Human Services. “All this has to go through the process obviously.”
Democratic Ire
The idea for a lightning-strike bill has been percolating among Capitol Hill Republicans since long before the election, and it’s sure to provoke howls from Democrats.
But there’s not much they can do under the rules, beyond kick up a fuss. Senate Democrats’ leader-in-waiting, Chuck Schumer of New York, has said in several interviews that Republicans will rue the day they roll back the health law.
Representative Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the law has worked in many important ways, including insuring millions of people and banning the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
“But it’s not about facts or data or performance. It’s about political promises, and what they said they would deliver,” he said, adding that he doubts Trump and congressional Republicans could backtrack now politically.
Budget Resolution
To pull off a lightning strike, Republicans would have to pass a budget resolution first for the current budget year, which can take a week or two even if they are in agreement on what it should say. That resolution would set budget targets for the bill to follow. Then the committees would have to push through the actual repeal bill.
Republicans will also face internal fights if they end up keeping much of the law in its current form.
“When we all run for office, we run on repeal and replace with a free-market alternative,” said Representative Dave Brat, a conservative member of the Freedom Caucus from Virginia. “We did not run and say: ‘Let’s kind of soften this failed experiment down a little bit and keep most of the elements of socialized, top-down central planning in health care, along with 20 to 50 percent premium increases, and mandates forcing you to buy products by the federal government.’”
“We don’t need to be nasty, but we need to be rational and principled. And if we do not move forward with what we promised, the American people will rightly judge us as a failure, and a moral failure, as well, for not keeping our word,” said Brat.
But already there are some Republicans who are concerned about the possible scope of a reconciliation effort now that whatever they pass could actually become law.
Representative Dennis Ross, a Florida Republican who is a senior deputy whip, said Tuesday, “In my view, the repeal is not nearly as important as replacement.”
“To just say ‘repeal everything, and the mandates, without a replacement,’ then what?” he asked. “I don’t think we can do a repeal without a replacement. People are already in the system.”
One House centrist, who didn’t want to be identified by name in order to speak more freely, confirmed several members are voicing their opposition to leaders about voting again to defund Planned Parenthood in the reconciliation package.
But Speaker Paul Ryan suggested that GOP leaders plan to push ahead. During his most recent Capitol news conference on Nov. 17, he said, “We’ve already shown what we believe with respect to Planned Parenthood. We put a bill on President Obama’s desk in reconciliation. Our position has not changed.”
Talking With Trump
Republican leaders are also talking with Trump about how exactly to move forward.
“Obamacare has hurt families across the country through higher costs and less choice, and they made their disgust with the law known by voting for a candidate who ran on repeal,” said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong.
“Speaker Ryan is in near-daily communication with President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Pence about the agenda for next year,” she added. “We will share more when we have it.”
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said they have nothing to announce yet on the schedule.
Keep up with the race of a lifetime.
Get our politics newsletter daily.
Sign Up
“This continues to be a top priority for the Senate Finance Committee, which has kept a steady pace with its efforts to replace Obamacare with common-sense reforms that will lower costs and increase choice,” said Julia Lawless, spokeswoman for Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah. “The chairman is working with members to find the best way to move forward and is confident Congress will be prepared to act quickly next year.”
The reconciliation process can also be used on tax bills and to raise the federal debt limit, which must be done sometime in mid-2017. The last time Republicans had control of the House, Senate and the White House during George W. Bush’s administration, they pushed through an assortment of items via reconciliation packages, affecting taxes, Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous other programs.

Latest Benghazi Bombshell Implicates White House in Benghazi Coverup!

benghazi-liars

by TIM BROWN
Newly obtained emails by Judicial Watch point way past the State Department’s twisting of the Benghazi talking points following the September 11, 2012 jihad attacks that left four Americans dead.

Judicial Watch reports:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.

Benghazi4

However, in another email sent by former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice on September 12, 2012, he wrote:

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.

In another email dated September 11, 2012, Senior Advisor Eric Pelofsky wrote to Susan Rice:

As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…

Rice would later appear on five Sunday shows and knowingly lie to the American public. However, she was only one of many who lied. Both Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah and Hillary Clinton knowingly and willingly lied to the families of the victims and the American people about the attacks in Benghazi.

Clearly, Benghazi became a coverup and at the center of it was an orchestrated lie, which was centered on a video with ties to the company that created the Obamacare website and that was produced by a Muslim tied to the Obama Justice Department.

ARE YOU READY FOR THIS - Food Stamp Recipients Expected To Work!?

Wait, any “able bodied” individual between the ages of 18 to 49 in Florida, who is receiving food stamps, may lose their benefits if they don’t volunteer or work for at least 20 hours a week.

What!? Que!?

I thought that we taxpayers just had to flip the bill for all of these food stampers, and they just hand to sit back an reap all of the goodies we afford them to purchase with a swipe of an Access or SNAP credit card? (Sarcasm)

As of the first of the year, able-bodied, childless adults ages 18 to 49 were required to work, get job training or volunteer 20 hours a week to receive food stamps through what is formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Otherwise, they are limited to three months of food assistance in each 36-month period.-Source

We can expect the pro-Food stamp, pro-illegal immigration and pro-unemployment lobbies to all weigh in on this.

Read more at https://shark-tank.com/2016/04/08/breaking-food-stamp-recipients-expected-to-work/

THIS IS WHY WE NEED TRUMP -FEDS BUILT A $75 MILLION BUILDING FOR THE WRONG AGENCY (THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FOR SOMEONE ELSE)

So…this just happened. Usually, when you read those words it means an embarrassing or funny story is about to be told. The same applies here only, in reality, it’s not so funny that our tax dollars paid for this level of incompetency. Then again, we pay for incompetency every day – just look at Congress.

The Daily Caller –

General Services Administration (GSA) officials designed a $75 million federal law enforcement facility so unsuited to what the intended occupants needed that they couldn’t use the building when it was completed, according to the Government Accountability Office.

GSA, already notorious for wasteful spending on conferences and employee videos, didn’t talk to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) during design phase of the more than 180,000 square foot building, the congressional watchdog agency said in a report made public Tuesday.

“As a result, FPS said that no law enforcement agencies were able to use the facility and that GSA invested resources for a facility that is not suitable for its intended tenants,” GAO said.

Officials at GSA thought the new facility was for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ district headquarters so they consulted with the FPS on perimeter security. But GAO said GSA’s failure to coordinate with FPS before constructing a nearly $75 million building is evidence of a serious lack of communications between two agencies according to GAO.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/

A lot of people have to pay back their 2014 ObamaCare Subsidies to the IRS

doc-obama-this-is-gonna-hurt

A lot of people who received subsidies from ObamaCare in 2014 are finding out that the Affordable Care Act is forcing them to pay that money back to the Internal Revenue Service because the administration did a poor job of spreading important information.

When individuals enrolled in the program at the beginning of last year they had to estimate their income for 2014. The amount of the subsidy that the individual would receive was based on this estimate. Some people thought they could get away with receiving higher monthly subsidies if they intentionally estimated a low income for 2014, while many others simply had no idea what their incomes would be.

What many of these people were not aware of was that they were responsible for informing the government if they had an unexpected rise in their incomes that would invalidate their original estimate. If somebody’s income rose past their original estimate and they did not report it, then they would have received a larger subsidy than the law allowed. ObamaCare officials did not make this information well-known, and now people are paying the price for it.

For example, Janice Riddle is a woman from California and couldn’t believe it when she found out she would owe the IRS money. “I was blindsided that the subsidy has to be paid back,” she said. “I’m in shock…but I have no choice. Do I want to argue with the IRS or the Obama administration?” She has to pay back her entire subsidy, which came out to $470 per month.

Her case is not an isolated incident. For example, early data from some taxpayers shows that 53 percent of Jackson Hewitt clients who received subsidies will have to repay part or all of their subsidies–not a trifling sum, since the average monthly subsidy in 2014 was $264. The largest amounts owed in repaid subsidies so far reach as high as $12,000 .

Some of the people whose subsidies have been reduced or lost can no longer afford the full cost of their monthly premiums, so they are choosing to go without health insurance this year. Sadly for these individuals, the individual mandate penalty for being uninsured (which could be as high as $975 per person next year) suddenly looks like a bargain compared to the true cost of ObamaCare’s unaffordable insurance.

Instead of making health insurance more affordable, ObamaCare is merely transferring costs onto taxpayers. When the subsidies are taken away from people, it’s clear that premiums are way more expensive than officials in the government are leading people to believe. It’s an incredibly complicated law and has been impossible to implement without causing headaches and damage for millions of people.

THEY THINK THAT YOU ARE DUMB

sunday

5 Years Of Obama Has Decimated The American Work Force

Welcome to the New Normal

Curious why despite the huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%. source – Zero Hedge
american-labor-work-force-35-year-low-obama-kenyan-cloward-pivenAnd the piece de resistance: Americans not in the labor force exploded higher by 535,000 to a new all time high 91.8 million.
labor-work-force-35-year-low-obama-kenyan-cloward-piven-marxism
The jobless, laborless recovery continues to steam on.

Eric Holders Department Of Justice Says: Your Family Can’t Run Their Business as Catholics

William, Paul and James Newland and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who together own Hercules Industries, have no right to conduct their family business in a manner that comports with their Catholic faith.

The federal government can and will compel them to either surrender their business or to engage in activities the Catholic faith teaches are intrinsically immoral.

This is exactly what President Barack Obama’s Justice Department told a U.S. district court in a formal filing last week.

Never before has an administration taken such a bold step to strip Americans of the freedom of conscience — a right for which, over the centuries, many Christian martyrs have laid down their lives, and which our Founding Fathers took great care to protect in a First Amendment that expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion.

As the Founders understood, no government has legitimate authority to take this right away, because it does not come from government. It comes from God. The very purpose of government is to protect this right. A government that seeks to strip it away from the people is by that very process stripping away its own legitimacy.

What we are seeing from the Obama administration today — in its attack on religious liberty — is simply evil. When government seeks to compel individuals to act against their consciences and to engage in activities that, if willfully done, would imperil their immortal souls, there is no other word for it.

The Newland family owns and operates Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based corporation that manufactures heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. Through their hard work and dedication, and through their willingness to reinvest their own money in building their family business, they have managed to create jobs for 265 people while exerting a positive influence on the communities they serve.

The Newlands believe the morality the Catholic faith teaches them must animate their lives not only within the walls of the churches they attend, but literally everywhere else, as well — in the way they deal with their families, their neighbors and, yes, their business.

The Newlands sued to protect their free exercise of religion in this regard because Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a regulation, under the Obamacare law, that requires virtually all health care plans to cover — without cost-sharing — sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients.

Under Obamacare, businesses that employ more than 50 people must provide their employees with insurance or pay a penalty, and the required insurance must include the mandated cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients.

At Hercules Industries, the Newlands provide a generous self-insured health-care plan to their employees.
It does not cover sterilization, artificial contraception or abortifacients.

“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the Newlands’ lawsuit.

“Consequently, the Newlands believe that it would be immoral and sinful for them to intentionally participate in, pay for, facilitate or otherwise support abortifacient drugs, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling as would be required by the Mandate, through their inclusion in health insurance coverage they offer at Hercules,” says the suit.

The Catholic Bishops of the United States endorse this view. At a meeting in Atlanta last month, they unanimously adopted a resolution calling the HHS regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.” They declared that the regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.

“They, too,” said the bishops, “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.”

In a letter read during Sunday Mass in most dioceses around the country earlier this year, many of the nation’s bishops flatly said: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

In response to the Newlands’ complaint that ordering them to violate the teachings of the Catholic Church in the way they run their business is a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, the Obama administration told the federal court that a private business has no protection under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause — especially if the business is incorporated.

“The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church,” said the Justice Department. “Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.”

“By definition,” said the Justice Department, “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.'”

“It is well established that a corporation and its owners are wholly separate entities, and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or its employees,” said the Justice Department.

This is just as if the Justice Department were to tell a family owned newspaper that it must publish editorials calling for a confiscatory estate tax, basing its coercion of the newspaper on the supposition (which lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom argue DOJ is by analogy making) that as a for-profit secular and incorporated employer, the paper has no First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Source

GEORGE SOROS PROMOTES UN CONTROL OVER GUN OWNERSHIP

Joe Wolverton, II
The New American
Saturday, July 7, 2012

George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.

Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.
In a blog post published on July 3, Timothy Johnson of Media Matters describes the notion that the United Nations would ever try to take away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms “laughable.”
Johnson goes on to promote the passage of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as a means of “curtailing the illicit arms trade” and thus cracking down on those who use these weapons to deny others their “human rights.”
The blog post assures citizens concerned about the potential eradication of the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution that they have nothing to fear from the UN’s gun control treaty.
Top officials from the United Nations, the United States, and other high profile supporters have repeatedly and clearly said that the treaty does not aim to restrict anyone’s “freedom to own” a gun. Indeed, the UN General Assembly’s resolution on the treaty makes clear that countries will “exclusively” maintain the right within their borders to “regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownerships.”
Constitutionalists will instantly notice a couple of red flags raised by Media Matters’ word choice.

First, there need be no quotation marks around the phrase freedom to own a gun. Americans should enjoy the unqualified right to bear arms and it is not some antiquated idea or some unicorn-like mythical creature that requires special punctuational treatment. Americans are well aware that an unarmed citizenry is easier to subdue and will rightly resist all efforts to abridge that right.
Second, the citizens of the United States do not need the permission of the United Nations to maintain the “exclusive” right to own a gun. This right, as with all others protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, comes from God, not man, and may be neither given nor taken away by any government.
Undaunted, however, Soros will continue to use his mouthpieces to promote the globalist agenda, including the incremental dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and the sovereignty it protects.
The current draft of the ATT mandates that the governments of member states petition the United Nations for approval of any contract to sell weapons to any nation where there exists a “substantial risk of a serious violation” of human rights.
While the end of reducing the abuse of human rights is laudable, the means to achieve that cannot lawfully include the requirement that the Congress of the United States ask for permission from the UN overlords before it passes a law, including one authorizing the sale of arms to another country. That is a direct assault on American legislative sovereignty, and an indirect attack on the sovereignty of the American people who elect the members of Congress who vote on such measures.
In the text of the ATT, the United Nations specifically calls for the passage of a legally binding instrument that will impose international standards for the ownership, trade, and transfer of weapons.
In another section the ATT includes “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons.” Predictably, all these controls are couched comfortably in talk of “human rights” and ending senseless killings by rogue regimes.
In order to avoid being labeled a “human rights abuser,” the United States (along with all member states) is ordered by the UN to comply with the ATT. To compel this compliance, the ATT empowers the UN to force Congress to:
• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans
• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the U.S. government to keep theirs
• Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of semi-automatic guns
• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America
On this point, in 2011, the UN’s General Assembly declared “that disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation are essential.” In other words, if world peace, the protection of human rights, and the disarming of violent regimes could be achieved through the confiscation of personal firearms, then so be it.
Make no mistake, however, Soros and his fellow globalist gun controllers don’t have in mind (at least at first) to march blue-helmeted UN soldiers into the homes of Americans with orders to seize their guns and ammunition. Rather, through the passage of binding international treaties and UN resolutions, they will force the national governments of the world to do the dirty work for them.
Sadly, officials of our own federal government, including President Obama, are pushing Congress to sign off on this treaty.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the Obama administration is working with the UN to lean on Congress to consent to the ATT.
Clinton has pushed the treaty as an “opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.”
There is little doubt that the scope of those “legitimate purposes” will be determined by Soros, Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the globalist gang who have much to fear from an armed and educated citizenry.
For now, the resistance to ratification of such a treaty is strong in the United States. Last July Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and 44 other senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton encouraging them to stop pushing for passage of UN gun control treaties. In the letter, Moran wrote:
Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.
George Soros, through his Media Matters outlet, promises that “U.S. gun owners have nothing to fear” from the ATT or from similar UN agreements to restrict the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms. The globalists’ only goal, they maintain, is “the maintenance of international peace and security.”
For those whose fears are assuaged by such gentle words, we offer this competing comment from Benjamin Franklin written in a letter penned in 1755: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Source

George Soros "End Game" Revealed By Former Spy - Listen to This - It is all coming true

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
SEO Powered By SEOPressor