Urge Your State Representatives To Support An Article V Convention

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

article v logo 002

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Mark Levin started this movement with his best selling book, The Liberty Amendments, it’s up to us to keep it going.

Do you believe Washington, D.C., is broken? Do you believe those in D.C. are willing or capable of curbing their own power? Are you looking for a solution to reduce the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints and place term limits on federal officials?

A package of constitutional amendments — proposed by an Article V convention of the states and designed to curb the abuses of the federal government — would go a long way toward restoring the rightful power of state and local governments.

According to a recent Pew survey, only 23 percent of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing “at least most of the time.” A higher percentage of Americans trust their state and local governments — 33 percent trust their state government and 41.5 percent trust their local government to do the right thing all or most of the time.

State and local governments are closer to the people they serve and, thus, more accountable. The individuals in a state or city can more easily contact or visit their representatives and officials to voice their concerns or grievances. Unfortunately, D.C. has gradually stripped these governments of their rightful power, turning them into nothing more than regional agencies.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

It’s time for a change in the status quo.

We should continue to elect virtuous people who vow to defend the Constitution; however, we’ve been trying that for decades. And the federal government has gotten larger and more abusive. According to State Budget Solutions, in 2013, North Carolina received 32.5 percent of its revenue from the federal government. At what point will the state legislators we elect be irrelevant? When will they become simply wards of the federal government?

There is a federal leviathan apparatus in Washington, D.C., that is hard to overcome.

Imagine a castle as the federal government. Its walls have gotten bigger and bigger over the last 100 years, almost impenetrable. We keep trying the same battering rams to knock down these walls without success, hoping for a different result. And then we look, and there’s a door open for us to walk through. The Founders in their wisdom knew we needed a method for the states to bypass Congress and provided one in the Constitution’s Article V. HB 321 (= SB 398) are currently under consideration in the General Assembly.

I ask that you urge your state representatives to support a Convention of States. Please call or e-mail your state representative and senator asking for their support. For more information, please visit conventionofstates.com.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

RAW VIDEO Democrat Senator: “Slavery Was Right For The Time”

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 

 photo Oregon20state20senator20Chuck20Riley20in20favor20of20gun20control_zpsfpvaf7uu.jpg
Oregon State Senator Chuck Riley, Democrat (of course, what else? he voted to for gun control)

 

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com.

I’ve got to admit, when faced with his angry constituents, he really has that “deer caught in the headlights” look.

At a recent constituent coffee town hall, Oregon state Senator Chuck Riley took heat from pro gun folks who were upset with his vote for the “universal background check” bill. Riley attempted to defend this in numerous different ways, including referencing Supreme Court decisions. When one citizen asked him about the Supreme Court upholding slavery back in the 1800s, Riley said “They were right for the time”.

But that wasn’t the end of it. When asked how he or anyone would know if two people were breaking the new background check law by doing a transaction in their home, be it 2 legal citizens or 2 criminals, Riley said there would be no way to know that the law was being broken. One of his staffers, Melissa Walton Hendricks, chimes in and says that the seller would be responsible if the gun were used in a crime. But when asked how anyone know who the previous owner is, she had no answer. Another woman says we need registration and more gun control to stop things like the Clackamas shooting and Sandy Hook, but then says that registration and “universal background checks” wouldn’t have stopped those criminals from stealing guns and using them to kill people.

He continued to get hammered over and over, as fed up citizens let him have it, and he basically ignores all stats that show states with these laws have more homicide and violent crime than Oregon currently has. So why is Chuck Riley following the path of more dangerous states, such as California? Give him a call at (503) 986-1715 and ask him.

But here’s a hint.

Senator Riley previously served 2 terms as a state representative, lost a race for state senate in 2010 to Bruce Starr, then won the rematch in 2014. Riley was the beneficiary of $85,000 from the civil rights prohibitionist lobby, which included$75,000 from Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety and $10,000 from the Brady Campaign.

.

.

.

Share

Football Legend Publicly Rejects His Alma Mater Because They Canceled ‘American Sniper’ Movie

Share

Boomer Esiason

 

Hat/Tip to Joel Himelfarb at Newsmax.

Former Quarterback and now talk show host, Boomer Esiason is “deeply saddened and insulted” by his Alma Mater, the University of Maryland for bowing to pressure by some Muslim students and canceling an airing of the movie, American Sniper.

Current talk-show host and former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason says he is cutting off the University of Maryland, his alma mater, after it decided to cancel a screening of the movie “American Sniper.”

Esiason tweeted that he is “never donating another dime to the U of MD” after learning about the cancellation of the film, which profiles the life of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

“I’m deeply saddened and insulted,” Esiason added. Chris Kyle, he emphasized, “is a HERO!”

Esiason tweeted out an op-ed by Todd Starnes of Fox News explaining why the film was canceled at the University of Maryland.

Starnes wrote that the school said it would postpone indefinitely an upcoming screening of the film after some Muslim students denounced it as “Islamophobic, racist, and nationalistic.”

He quoted a petition launched by the Muslim Students Association denouncing “American Sniper.” It declared that the film “only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason.”

The movie “dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes,” according to the MSA’s petition.

“American Sniper” was scheduled to be seen May 6 and 7. On Wednesday, the university’s Student Entertainment Events panel said the film would be “postponed.”

Although it did not mention the MSA’s petition, the panel mentioned that it had a meeting about the film with “concerned student organizations.”

Breyer Hillegas, president of the school’s College Republicans, told Fox News’ Starnes that he was furious about the cancellation.

“Universities are always trying to satisfy the political correctness police and worry about who they might offend — rather than standing up for principle and the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Hillegas said.

But this isn’t the only school where Muslim students tried to censor free speech.

The University of Michigan canceled a screening there earlier this month, only to reverse itself after a firestorm of criticism from across the United States. One prominent critic was the school’s new football coach, Jim Harbaugh, who said he was “proud” of Chris Kyle and planned to show “American Sniper” to his team.

.

.

.

Share

After Flag Desecration, Valdosta State University Does The Unthinkable: They Support An American Flag Rally

Share

american flag 005

 

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune and CBS News.

When Michelle Manhart, former United States Air Force Staff Sergeant and Playboy model saw Black Supremacists walking on the American flag last week, she took action and rescued the flag. She was arrested for her efforts, but it didn’t end there.

Thousands of people rallied to her cause and Valdosta State University supported an event called Flags Over VSU, in which over four thousand people registered to attend. It was a peaceful rally and Old Glory could be seen everywhere. In fact, the University suspended classes for the day of the event.

Eric Sheppard the Black Panther who was walking on the flag, evidently brought a gun onto school grounds, and subsequently made a Youtube video in which he proclaims:

Black Supremacist Eric Sheppard

“That flag represents white supremacy racism which is plaguing the entire earth, so when we step on that flag we are stepping on racism, white supremacy. We are stepping on the things that were erected alongside our genocide and our holocaust,” the man said.

He went on to say, “I am a terrorist toward lies. I’m a terrorist toward liars. I’m a terrorist toward those that are wicked, so yes, I am a terrorist toward white people.”

It is sad to hear one of our youth be so misguided and ignorant of history. In his video, he claims that Africans brought civilization to the world twice, once under Egypt and once under the Morrs. What he fails to understand is that both of those civilizations used slavery to attain their goals and to build those civilizations.

According to Mr. Sheppard, only white people have ever held slaves and he purports that we still do hold black people in slavery, just not “absolute” slavery, but in the slavery of prisons.

Gee, and I always thought that if you didn’t break the law, you got to stay out of prison.

Some people are trying to criticize Michelle Manhart for posing nude with the flag a few years ago. If you follow the link to the rather long video, she explains not only why and how she did that photo shoot but reaches out to the other side. For some reason, Facebook is preventing the video from being embedded.

Yes, Michelle reaches out to the same folks who were desecrating the flag and she tries to find common ground. That takes composure and class. Let’s hope that she runs for higher office one day.

I believe Michelle handled herself very well in this situation. Although I cant understand how this girl stated that Eric did not “walk on the flag” that he was trying to walk around it…. that is BS. He Paced back and forth over and over and over the flag. Purposely! This isn’t an issue with race. Its an issue with the disrespect of the flag. If a white person did this, it would be the same situation. The whole race thing needs to stop, because regardless, whether you are WHITE, BLACK, ASIAN, MEXICAN…. You’re STILL AMERICAN. We’re all Americans and the point behind this entire rally is that we need to come together as AMERICANS, and stop drawing the line between whites and blacks.

Posted by Kristin Ann on Friday, April 24, 2015

..

Share

Families Of Sandy Hook Distance Themselves From The Fourth Dixie Chick’s (Tim McGraw’s) Fundraiser

Share

The Fourth Dixie Chick

 

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com and AWR Hawkins at Breitbart.

Despite the fact that Sandy Hook Promise has among its goals the repeal of all concealed carry laws, and reducing all magazines to 10 rounds or less, Tim (Fourth Dixie Chick) McGraw is still going ahead with his Gun Control Benefit Concert.

On MSNBC he said about the concert, “I lead with my heart” in explaining why he was doing the show.

In other words, he’s just trying to help and he doesn’t want to be held responsible for what Sandy Hook Promise does with the tens of thousands he will raise for them.

Sorry Timmy, we’re not buying it and neither are almost a dozen families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, either.

On April 22 families of 11 Sandy Hook Elementary victims made clear that they are not affiliated with Sandy Hook Promise, the gun control group for whom Tim McGraw is raising money.

There have been attempts to explain away Sandy Hook Promise’s support of gun control since Breitbart News’ April 14 report on McGraw’s upcoming gun control fundraiser. Since that time, former Obama adviser David Axelrod has come out in support of McGraw’s “gutsy” stand for the gun control fundraiser, and McGraw explained that he is sticking to his commitment to support Sandy Hook Promise because he is leading with his heart.

Now, NBC Connecticut reports that families of 11 Sandy Hook victims want “to clarify the issue for donors who might believe they are directly supporting the victims’ families.” These families worry that Sandy Hook Promise “is at times wrongly assumed to speak for all 26 victims’ families.”

The families made sure to point out that their decision to issue the statement “isn’t related to a position on the gun debate or other issues surrounding the tragedy,” rather they simply wanted to clarify that they are not affiliated with the group behind the McGraw concert.

Norfolk Daily News quoted the 11 families saying: “We wish only to provide clarification for the many generous donors that believe they are directly supporting the families at the center of this tragedy by contributing to the Sandy Hook Promise [organization].”

.

.

.

Share

Ted Cruz:The New York Times Doesn’t Have A Clue About The Meaning Of The Second Amendment

Share

Ted Cruz

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

It looks like the New York Times is having trouble understanding what “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” really means.

 

The New York Times Doesn’t Have A Clue About The Meaning Of The Second Amendment

By Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX)

On Friday, the New York Times stated, in a blaring headline, that my support for Second Amendment rights is “strange.”

In particular, the writer took issue with my statement that “”the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.”

In addition to “strange,” the NYT described this view as “ridiculous,” “silly,” and “absurd” (methinks the Old Gray Lady doth protest too much).

The writer, the lead editor for the Times’ editorial page, continued, “I just don’t get the argument on constitutional or historical grounds.”

Perhaps this will help. Let’s survey some other “silly” people who have embraced this heretical understanding of our liberties.

Thomas Jefferson

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. . . .

Alexander Hamilton

But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights. . . .

Noah Webster

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

Justice Joseph Storey

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

James Madison

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

You can support Ted Cruz for President by clicking here

.

.

.

Share

David Axelrod ‘Suddenly’ Becomes A Fan Of The Fourth Dixie Chick…

Share

The Fourth Dixie Chick

 

Hat/Tip to Rick Wells at ConstitutionRising.com.

Obama’s former adviser and campaign ‘guru’ for both the 2008 and the 2012 elections has been making the rounds as of late hawking his new book. Well evidently sales are lagging because Axelrod has decided to interject himself into the Tim McGraw anti-2nd Amendment benefit debacle.

david the red axelrodDavid Axelrod played a key role in orchestrating our current failed national experiment with Marxism, having been a senior adviser to the current occupant of the White House and integral component of his successful taking of the White House. He’s now operating as the director of the Institute of Politics at the Communist Indoctrination facility that goes by the name of University of Chicago.

Axelrod had praise for the recently exposed gun-grabber who believes in his right to own firearms, but not in ours, country singer Tim McGraw. Axelrod is suddenly a big fan now that McGraw has joined him on the wrong side of the Constitution.

On April 20th Axelrod sent out a tweet in support of McGraw, saying, “Gutsy move by Tim McGraw to stand up for Sandy Hook Promise. Is it really inconsistent to own guns AND advocate for steps to protect kids?

Actually, that is not a relevant or fair question, which is exactly what we would expect from someone so completely saturated with the poison of anti-American, Marxist ideology.

 

 

Supporting Sandy Hook Promise, an anti-Second Amendment group that is capitalizing on the emotion surrounding the event, is tim mcgraw to do benefit for gun control goupworking to make Americans less safe, by taking away our firearms. Were their type not already in policy-making positions prior to the shooting, it is probable that some defense could have been mustered to the assault by Adam Lanza. Creating more unarmed people through increasing restrictions is advocating for psychopaths and criminals, not for children.

If Axelrod were honest in his message, which will never be the case, he would recognize that Lanza stole the firearms used in the attack and that nothing short of a ban on private firearms might or might not have prevented the shooting. Perhaps that is what he’s really after. No tyranny can survive in an armed population.

The fact that there is not an ounce of truth in the claims of Axelrod doesn’t matter. The progressives pressing for our disarmament will hail his arguments as brilliant enlightenment and McGraw as a champion of reasonable gun ownership and safety. McGraw has shown himself as a hypocrite, who believes he is somehow entitled to protect his family but we are not.

McGraw is a staunch Democrat who is quoted as having said, “I love Bill Clinton. I think we should make him king. I’m talking the red robe, the turkey leg – everything.”

In a 2008 interview, McGraw pledged his support of Hussein Obama for president, saying, “It’s innate in me to be a blue-dog Democrat. I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, but that’s what I am. My wife and I and our family will do everything we can to support Obama. I like his ideas, I like his energy, and I like the statement he would make for our country to the world.”

The worst part of that statement is that the last six years seem to have taught him nothing at all. Maybe he feels Obama is justified in grabbing his own turkey legs.

He may be gutsy, but he’s not savvy and he’s probably not going to sellout many concerts anymore. Those gun-grabbers aren’t the biggest “country” fans and real cowboys don’t put their hands where they don’t belong. And they don’t belong on other people’s hats, their guns, or, as in the video below, slapping women in the face.


Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us

.

.

.

Share

Country Star Backs Out Of (Fourth Dixie Chick) Tim McGraw’s Gun Control Benefit Concert

Share
The Fourth Dixie Chick
The Fourth Dixie Chick?

Hat/Tip to Emily Yahr at The Washington Post.

Tim McGraw certainly knows how to immediately alienate over half of his audience lately and it’s beginning to earn him the nick name, “The Fourth Dixie Chick.”

However, one of his tour mates has decided not to go down that politically dangerous road.

Billy Currington
Billy Currington dropped out of gun control benefit concert

After several days of critical backlash by gun-rights advocates over a Tim McGraw concert to benefit a Sandy Hook charity, opening act Billy Currington has dropped out of the show.

Earlier this week, McGraw announced plans to headline a show this summer in Hartford, Conn., called the Concert for Sandy Hook Promise. According to the singer, all proceeds will benefit a non-profit organization that carries out “a mission of protecting children from gun violence.” The organization was created after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

This past Thursday night before, Billy Currington announced he would NOT take part in the gun control benefit concert.

Currington posted a note to his Facebook page on Thursday night that confirmed he would not play the show in Hartford, scheduled for July 17. Currington and Bryant are currently both part of the line-up for McGraw’s summer tour, which runs June 5 through Sept. 19.

“I’ve never been one to take on controversial issues — I’m a singer. I do feel strongly about honoring and supporting the Sandy Hook community and will be making a donation to a local organization,” Currington wrote. “I appreciate people’s freedom and passion for whatever cause they want to support, however, I am choosing to step aside from this fundraiser and will focus instead on the rest of the tour dates as I look forward to being on the road with Tim and Chase and having a blast with all of the fans.”

 

That same night, McGraw tried to defend his decision to perform in a gun control benefit concert.

On Thursday, McGraw released a statement to The Washington Post clarifying any misinformation about his motivations behind the concert:

“Let me be clear regarding the concert for Sandy Hook given much of the erroneous reporting thus far.  As a gun owner, I support gun ownership,” he said. “I also believe that with gun ownership comes the responsibility of education and safety — most certainly when it relates to what we value most, our children.  I can’t imagine anyone who disagrees with that.”

“Through a personal connection, I saw first-hand how the Sandy Hook tragedy affected families and I felt their pain. The concert is meant to do something good for a community that is recovering,” he added.

Here’s a sample of the tweets that came in about McGraw’s gun control benefit concert, even Country Legend Travis Tritt chimed in with disbelief that McGraw would even think of participating in such a controversial show.

 



 

 


 



 

 

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Wow. Here’s Tim McGraw’s Pathetic “Excuse” for Performing at Anti-Gun Fundraiser

Share

tim mcgraw to do benefit for gun control goup

 

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

It’s for the kids, man. Yep, looks like McGraw has stooped to the far left’s traditional talking point about doing it for the children.

To be clear, we here at Conservative Hideout are NOT saying that children and families didn’t suffer at the hands of the mental patient, Adam Lanza. What we are saying is that when you USE the tragedy those families had to and still are enduring to further a political agenda, then you have lost all semblance of respect for your side.

At worst McGraw is anti-2nd Amendment, anti-Constitution and at best, he’s the useful idiot of the month.

~~~~~

Country singer Tim McGraw tends to inspire smiles among conservatives because both he and his wife Faith Hill produce some wholesome music. However, his latest antics may have erased that smile for good.

Earlier this month, McGraw announced plans to headline a fundraiser for the Connecticut-based Sandy Hook Promise gun-control group. This set off an avalanche of backlash from gun rights advocates, who felt like he was stabbing them in the back.

This backlash inspired McGraw to issue a statement to Breitbart in which he tried to defend his actions via the most pathetic of excuses.

“As a gun owner, I support gun ownership,” McGraw argued in his statement. “I also believe that with gun ownership comes the responsibility of education and safety — most certainly when it relates to what we value most, our children.”

That’s all well and good there, Timmy. But the group you’ve blindly aligned yourself with has as part of its agenda the wish to limit everything from limiting the size of magazines to 10 rounds or less to outright repealing of concealed carry laws.

The problem is that according to Bearing Arms, while Sandy Hook Promise claims to “promote mental wellness, combat social isolation and prevent gun violence,” its primary focus in fact happens to be “on turning the public against the Second Amendment.”

But you don’t really care much about that, do ya’ Timmy?

Regardless, McGraw’s statement continued, “Through a personal connection, I saw first-hand how the Sandy Hook tragedy affected families and I felt their pain.”

He concluded, “The concert is meant to do something good for a community that is recovering.”

Note that one of Sandy Hook Promise’s members, Mark Barden, has reportedly dedicated “the rest of his life” to imposing his gun-control vision upon America.

That McGraw feels sadness for the Sandy Hook victims is perfectly understandable, as we too grieve the horrendous actions of Adam Lanza.

However, does this sadness excuse his decision to headline for a group that wants to repeal the Second Amendment?

.

.

.

Share

Second Amendment? Ted Cruz Smacks Down A Reporter – Hard

Share

poster 002Hat/Tip to Mike Miller at Doug Ross @ Journal.

On the 2nd Amendment Ted Cruz Mops The Floor With Reporter’s Attempt At A “Gotcha Question.”

You’ve gotta love how he so Reaganesguely deconstructs, and thus takes the power away from the typical far left ‘gotcha’ question.

 

At a recent event, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was asked the following question:

“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a statistic surfaced putting support for background checks at 90%. Did you go against the want of the nation with your vote against Manchin-Toomey (a bill that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns)?”

After patiently listening to the questioner read the prepared question, Cruz responded:

“You know there’s an old line: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You’re right, that was a poll that was bandied around a lot, but you can find a lot of results in a poll depending on how you frame the question. As you and I both know, we have a system of background checks in place right now.

What Manchin-Toomey was trying to do was extend that to every private sale between two individuals … two guys in a duck blind selling their shotgun, one to the other. The federal government doesn’t have any business there.

When you asked about the role of public opinion polls, when it comes to Constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says. It doesn’t matter what happens to be popular at the moment.

The entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting, it’s not for target shooting … it’s there so that you and I can protect our homes and our families and our lives. And it’s also there as fundamental check on government tyranny.”

Classic Cruz.

.

.

.

Share

Tim McGraw Poised To “Dixie Chick” Himself With Gun Control Benefit Concert

Share
tim mcgraw to do benefit for gun control goup
TIm McGraw does benefit concert to raise money for gun control group.

Hat/Tip to Bob Owens at BearingArms.com and AWR Hawkins at Breitbart.com.

Those of us old enough to remember can recall the way the Dixie Chicks went from headlining stadiums to having Country Music Fans burning their CD’s in bonfires and radio stations across the country dropping them from playlists after they stood on foreign soil and publicly ridiculed our President in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

Now it’s the “Who Chicks?”

Well looks like Country Super Star Tim McGraw is flirting with the same type of poison by his actions lately.

First of all, he had this to say about Obama…

A few years ago, McGraw admitted that he is not only an Obama-supporter, but also a hardcore Democrat.

“It’s innate in me to be a blue-dog Democrat. I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, but that’s what I am,” he told People. “My wife and I and our family will do everything we can to support Obama. I like his ideas, I like his energy, and I like the statement he would make for our country to the world.”

And now he’s going to headline a benefit concert with 100% of the proceeds going to a gun control group.

Tim McGraw has announced that on Friday, July 17, at XFINITY Theatre in Hartford, he will hold a concert to benefit Sandy Hook Promise. One-hundred percent of the net proceeds of this event will support Sandy Hook Promise, founded in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, with a mission of protecting children from gun violence.

Tickets for “Tim McGraw: A Concert for Sandy Hook Promise” go on public sale Friday, April 17, at 10 am, through www.LiveNation.com andwww.ticketmaster.com.

Featured performers will include current tourmates Billy Currington and Chase Bryant, along with special guests to be announced later.

Tickets, according to the Live Nation site, range from $31.35 to $71.25 ($43-$88.20 with fees).

“Out of this tragedy a group was formed that made a promise to honor the lives lost and turn it into a moment of transformation,” said Mr McGraw. “Sandy Hook Promise teaches that we can do something to protect our children from gun violence. I want to be a part of that promise — as a father and as a friend.”

This decision is not going to be received well by McGraw’s country music fan base, which overwhelmingly supports gun rights, and views a concert benefiting Sandy Hook Promise as being a betrayal.

Sandy Hook Promise claims to “promote mental wellness, combat social isolation, and prevent gun violence,” but by far their strongest emphasis is on turning the public against the Second Amendment rights of Americans by subtly equating the support of gun rights with the murder of children, as their social media accounts clearly show.

A major push right now for the group is forcing the adoption of so-called “universal background checks,” which would prevent the private transfer or sale of firearms between friends and family members without a federal background check. The goal of such a system is to serve as de facto gun registry, and which serves no legitimate crime prevention purpose.

Billy Currington and Chase Bryant, opening acts for McGraw on his current tour, are also scheduled to play the show funding the gun control group.

Breitbart.com had this take on the Sandy Hook Promise group:

On December 15, Breitbart News reported that Sandy Hook Promise is a vehicle through which various relatives of Sandy Hook victims have joined to push gun control until it passes. Newtown father Mark Bearden joined the group pledging to “dedicate the rest of his life” to pursuing gun control.

It should be noted that there was 100 percent gun control at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012. No guns were allowed, period. You can’t have more gun than that. Moreover, there were laws against stealing guns and possessing stolen guns as well. But none of these laws stopped or even dissuaded Adam Lanza.

Gun control renders law-abiding citizens defenseless, but it does nothing to stop criminals from carrying out their treachery. Because of this, the money McGraw and Currington raise will ultimately succeed in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire and carry the guns they need for self-defense.

To make matters even worse, McGraw fancies himself ready to be a governor…

PLEASE, Mr. McGraw, if the level of political ignorance you’ve displayed thus far in your music career is an indicator, PLEASE stay out of politics…we have enough Libtards who think they know everything in office, already.

.

.

.

Share

How Does One Leftist Piss Off Another Leftist: Try To Take Away His Power

Share

 photo keith-ellison_zpscmafd3pf.jpg

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com.

The hard left Democrats are on board with whatever Obama wants to do, until he wants to take away some of their power…

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) says when it comes to fast-tracking President Obama’s trade agreements, “it’s not constitutionally proper or right for us to give the authority to the executive, no matter who it is.”

Ellison told a crowd at the AFL-CIO Young Worker Summit last Friday that he doesn’t agree with the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or “Fast Track” measure.

“Now Fast Track says that ‘Congress, we want you to take your constitutionally designated authority and give it to the president, so he can negotiate the deal and then after he does, then you can vote yes or no,’” Ellison said.

“Let me tell you, 95 percent of the time I agree with President Obama. There’s five percent on this thing – I’m not with that, but usually we agree,” Ellison continued.

“We supported him on the executive orders on immigration, we supported him on the executive orders to stop wage theft, we supported him on a lot of things, but this – we’re not with that program.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Anatomy Of A Lawless President: A List Of Obama’s Constitutional & Federal Law Violations

Share

obama rips founding documents

 

Hat/Tip to Truth Seeker.

This is by no means an official, definitive list, but it does document the lawlessness with which this president operates.

> Updated 03/10/15   “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”  Barrack Hussein Obama.  Obama took the Presidential Oath, swearing to “.. preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” but has:

  • Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8
  • In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
  • *Entered Treaty Agreement with Iran without Advice & Consent of the Senate.  No agreement (including with UN) is valid without 2/3 Senate approval.  Article II Section 2.
  • Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment.
  • Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4
  • Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3
  • Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
  • Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2
  • Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.
  • 23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment
  • Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3
  • 2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.
  • Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8
  • Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t

    errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

  • Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8
  • Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3
  • Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8
  • Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8
  • Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
  • Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
  • Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment
  • Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.
  • Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so.
  • NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
  • Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything
  • Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
  • Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
  • Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment
  • DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
  • Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1
  • Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated
  • Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
  • Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment
  • Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)
  • Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.
  • ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.
  • Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment
  • Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers
  • Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare
  • Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.
  • Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)
  • The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.
  • Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.
  • Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
  • Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.
  • Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4.
  • With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.
  • Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.
  • The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
  • Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powersherein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.
  • Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
  • Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
  • Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
  • Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
  • Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3
  • Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.
  • Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
  • Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
  • Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
  • Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
  • In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

A Constitutional law professor (even their students) should know better.  The TRUTH is Obama was not a Constitutional law professor: “under no circumstances would an offer to Obama be tenured.” “The thought that the law school could have made a tenure offer to a person with no academic writing was out of the question.” Former University of Chicago Law School Dean Richard Epstein.

Clearly Obama has not respected or protected the Constitution. Obama has broken his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 1. 

Note: Executive Orders/Actions by the president were not designed for, nor do they give a president the authority to use as, a means to override or alter legislation or any other Constitutional violation.  Executive Orders cannot defy Congressional intent.

.

.

.

Share

Video: Chris Kyle Warned Us That Obama Will Try To “Ban Everything”

Share

Kyle-SEAL-550x309

 

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

In an interview taken just weeks before his murder, Chris Kyle had some prophetic warnings about our President and his hatred of the 2nd Amendment.

America’s deadliest sniper, Chris Kyle, who was nicknamed “Legend” in special operations circles, was interviewed just weeks before his unfortunate death in 2013 and issued a dire warning about President Barack Obama’s attempts to trample all over Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

His message has never been more true, given the fact that Obama recently pushed to ban certain types of popular ammo for common sporting rifles like the AR-15.

“I don’t know exactly what he’s doing,” Kyle said, referring to Obama’s continued efforts to enact gun control, “but I know he’s definitely against the Second Amendment, and he’s trying to ban everything.”

Kyle wished Obama’s government the best of luck should they decide to ban firearms completely, as he said he spoke with several police officers and even Secret Service agents who said they would never follow orders to go door-to-door in a confiscation scenario.

During the interview, Kyle said that enacting one ban on something related to firearms, like a 30-round magazine, only opens the door for the next ban, until eventually our constitutional rights concerning firearms are all but stripped away.

As Young Conservatives explained, without the Second Amendment, it’s close to impossible to stand up to a tyrannical government to defend the rest of our rights, including free speech.

When word spread of the possible banning of the extremely popular M855 5.56 mm rifle round, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives saw a massive backlash from gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association as well as outrage from law-abiding citizens.

They finally agreed to continue the exemption for that type of ammunition — but Democrats weren’t taking that well and have pushed the group to reconsider the ban.

.

.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

If Obama Lifts Sanctions On Iran, He’s Breaking A Law Nearly As Old As Our Constitution

Share
obama reed constitution
Courtesy of Bob Mack

 

 

The Obama administration hopes to forge an executive agreement with Iran, which at this time is referred to as the Iran Agreement Act. The kerfuffle between Congress and the Executive Branch focuses on whether or not Obama can go around Congress, and seal a deal with Iran, without the approval of Congress. We don’t know exactly what the “deal” will be, but numerous reports claim will weaken or lift sanctions against Iran, which also makes the sanctions weaker than those levied by the United Nations. Senator Rand Paul made it very clear, that if sanctions are tweaked or undone in the Act, the law has been broken. Also, see some commentary on the Logan Act from Lawfare Project, just above the Rand Paul video.

I’m kind of one of the senators in favor of negotiating with Iran. I want there to be a peaceful outcome, but I want to strengthen the president’s hand…by saying, you know what, we’ve got a lot of hardliners, and we’re going to have to get this agreement by Congress, and in doing so, maybe the president will negotiate a more appropriate deal where we actually get Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions.

I’ve also reiterated what the Constitution says, that the powers are separated, and that when legislation is passed by Congress–Congress passed most of the sanctions. They can’t be taken back without Congress passing new legislation, so I think this is a law, no matter whether there’s a letter, no matter whether the Corker bill passes, or not. I think the law is that the sanctions can only be removed by Congress, and by reiterating that, I think we send a message that this needs to be a good deal. ~ Rand Paul in video below.

A citizen’s petition on WhiteHouse.gov seeks to charge the 47 senators who signed the letter to the Iranian Mullahs, with treason under the Logan Act. The fairytale is, that the White House must consider any petition exceeding 100,000 signatures. In support of the petition’s claim: “This is a clear violation of federal law. In attempting to undermine our own nation, these 47 senators have committed treason,” there are 303,500+ ‘John Hancocks,’ in the form of initials.

Lawfare Project:

The text of the Logan Act makes it a crime for citizens to engage in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government . . . with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.”…

as Peter noted yesterday, the Logan Act has never been successfully used (indeed, the last indictment under the Act was in–not a typo–1803). Although most assume this is just a practical obstacle to a contemporary prosecution, it’s worth reminding folks about “desuetude”–the legal doctrine pursuant to which statutes (especially criminal ones) may lapse if they are never enforced (interested readers should check out a fantastic 2006 student note on the subject in the Harvard Law Review). If ever there was a case in which desuetude could be a successful defense to a federal criminal prosecution, I have to think that this would be it.

Of course, there are tons of practical and political obstacles to a Logan Act prosecution of these 47 Senators (or any other Member of Congress) as well. My point is simply to suggest that we needn’t even have that conversation given the (in my view insurmountable) legalroadblocks to any such Logan Act proceedings today. That doesn’t make the letter any less problematic; it just suggests its authors may not reasonably fear prosecution for writing it. Lawfare Project, Steve Vladeck

.

.

Share

Obama’s Next Step In “Fundamentally Transforming” America: Do Away With Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 Of The Constitution And Give It To The UN

Share

obama rips founding documents

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Let’s see, President Obama has ripped the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He’s shredded the Advise and Consent clause by declaring the Senate in session, despite not having the power to do so. He did away with the Legislative clause by writing laws on his own when he changed the Affordable Care Act a whopping 24 times.

The list goes on, and on. In fact, Barack Obama has committed SIXTY-ONE separate violations against our Constitution, with some occurring many times over.

And now, he’s at it again. This time he wishes to cede our ability to enter into treaties with other countries to the United Nations. If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know about the UN, then nothing does.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads:

The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday (Google link) that Secretary of State John Kerry is still upset about the open letter Sen. Tom Cotton (R – Ark.) wrote last week that was signed by 46 other Republican senators arguing that it was Congress’ role to review treaties.

Mr. Kerry said on Saturday in Egypt that these American lawmakers were “wrong.”

“It is almost inevitable it will raise questions in the minds of the folks with whom we’re negotiating as to whether or not they are negotiating with the executive department and the president, which is what the constitution says, or whether there are 535 members of Congress,” Mr. Kerry told reporters in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

“Let me make clear to Iran…that from our point of view, this letter is incorrect in its statements,” he added. “As far as we are concerned, the Congress has no ability to change an executive agreement.”

It strikes me as odd that Kerry is doubling down on his non-binding argument. An executive agreement is not binding, unlike a treaty, and therefore not subject to Congressional review. It’s also odd that he claims, “as far as we are concerned.”

Shouldn’t the Constitution be the standard by which the Republican claims are judged? Finally, there’s Kerry’s famous declaration at the time the Joint Plan of Action was signed in November 2013 that the agreement was not based on trust. So if the agreement is not based on trust and it’s non-binding what “mechanism” will there to be verify that Iran isn’t overtly or covertly pursuing an illicit nuclear program?

More and more I’m convinced that Cotton’s reason for writing the letter was to smoke out the administration on this point.

It wasn’t unknown that the administration was portraying the emerging agreement with Iran as “non-binding.” Armin Rosen of Business Insider, for example, suggested this a week before Kerry and other administration officials admitted it. The problem of course with the administration’s position is, as Rosen wrote last week:

The US wouldn’t have a firm legal obligation to uphold the agreement, so Iran would have a built-in reason to assume American bad faith and push the limits of a future deal. In other words, without a legal guarantee on the US side, compliance with an agreement is potentially diluted Tehran’s side as well — and remember, this is a regime that hid the existence of two secret nuclear facilities and operated 20,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges in defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions.

One problem with Kerry’s harping on the Cotton letter is that it reinforces the weakness of the agreement that the United States is negotiating with Iran. The other problem is that despite the administration’s claim that the deal it is negotiating is non-binding, there is an effort to make this deal binding – on the United States.

The Cotton letter not only elicited a response from the administration, it elicited a response from Iran. After the letter was publicized, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear negotiator, Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote a response on Iran’s foreign ministry website, leaking an important detail about the negotiations. (For some reason this leak did not elicit an outraged response from the administration about not negotiating in public.)

He [Zarif] emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

The Security Council gambit leaked by Zarif and apparently other sources prompted Sen. Bob Corker’s letter released Thursday, which called out the administration for bypassing Congress.

There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote. Enabling the United Nations to consider an agreement or portions of it, while simultaneously threatening to veto legislation that would enable Congress to do the same, is a direct affront to the American people and seeks to undermine Congress’s appropriate role.

Corker pointed out that various senior administration officials had promised to take any deal to Congress, so in addition to the “affront to the American people,” the administration is going back on its word.

(About the same time Corker released his letter, Reuters reported that the P5+1 powers were negotiating with Iran to lift the U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran for breaching its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and failing to come clean about its past nuclear research to the International Atomic Energy Agency.)

Corker wasn’t the only Republican to object to administration’s plan of bringing the agreement to the U.N. Security Council, and, at first the National Security Council (NSC) pushed back against these reports, as Jennifer Rubin observed. Rubin cited BuzzFeed, which carried the NSC denial.

The U.S. has “no intention” of using the United Nations to lock into place any potential deal with Iran over its nuclear program, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

The United States will not be “converting U.S. political commitments under a deal with Iran into legally binding obligations through a UN Security Council resolution,” Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council, said in a statement emailed to BuzzFeed News.

But then over the weekend Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, in a letter to Corker, no longer pretended that Security Council would not be involved.

(I am no lawyer, but I think that Jack Goldsmith gives McDonough and the administration way too much credit here. The implication of the letter is that you dance to our tune or risk undermining the careful diplomacy we’ve carried out. I find the David Rivkin-Lee Casey analysis here, even without reference to the McDonough letter, a lot more convincing.)

The administration’s incoherent response to the Cotton letter suggests that it wasn’t ready for the Security Council gambit to be revealed. It looks like Kerry and other administration sources, hoping to evade the issue, used the “non-binding” defense to say that the administration is not negotiating a treaty.

Then apparently the NSC tried to say that the Security Council would not play a role but no one believed the argument, so McDonough played it straight. Why Kerry is still fixated on the Cotton letter, I have no idea. My best guess is that he’s hoping to distract people from thinking too much about the implication of McDonough’s admission.

The game Iran is playing is that it wants the P5+1 nations (the P5 nations being the five permanent members of the Security Council) to revoke all six Security Council resolutions finding Iran in breach of its NPT obligations and imposing sanctions in response to its bad behavior. With this “get of jail free” card, Iran will turn to the United States and demand that Congress lift the sanctions it passed. I have little doubt that whatever lip service McDonough now pays to “Congress making its own determinations” about a deal will be gone if and when the Security Council lifts the sanctions. If Congress remains unconvinced of Iran’s reformed behavior, the administration will tell Congress that “if congressional action is perceived as preventing us from reaching a deal, it will create divisions within the international community,” just as it is doing now.

Intentionally or not I think that McDonough gave away the game when he wrote, “We agree that Congress will have a role to play – and will have to take a vote – as part of any comprehensive deal. As we have repeatedly said, even if a deal is reached, only Congress can terminate the existing Iran statutory sanctions.”

The administration doesn’t see Congress as a partner in these negotiations. Tom Cotton’s letter forced that out. That is why they still haven’t forgiven him. Meanwhile, those who aren’t distracted by the administration’s feigned outrage, are starting to figure out the scope of the administration’s capitulation to Iran.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

BREAKING: These 3 States Just Made A Huge Move To ABOLISH Concealed Carry Permits

Share

 photo 2ndamendment_zps734bf82d.jpg

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

The 2nd Amendment has been under attack by the left for quite some time now, and try as they might, they’ve not yet been successful in getting rid of it. It is so simple in it’s logic, but the left just doesn’t get it, the 2nd Amendment IS our right to a concealed carry permit!

While the Founders would agree with the statement above, modern day government chooses to interpret it differently — leaving it to the states to decide if they want to abide by the document that this great nation was founded upon.

Three states, including Kansas, New Hampshire and West Virginia, recently decided that constitutional carry, the name given to a bill that legalizes both open and concealed carry, is the only gun “law” that an American citizen needs.

One major loophole that the constitutional carry bill closes is the fact that in some states where open carry is legal, the act of slipping on a coat or jacket over your firearm essentially turns you into a law-breaking criminal, as the firearm then becomes “concealed.”

Other states around the nation are advancing pro-gun legislation, marking major victories for Second Amendment supporters and proving once again that the billions of dollars spent by the anti-gun lobby is a massive waste of money.

All three state senates have had Constitutional carry bills passed, paving the way for additional states to follow (H/T Controversial Times).

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share