11-Jan-2010
No we’re not talking about the Sci-Fi fantasy motion picture; we’re talking about President Obama’s recent executive order granting Interpol full diplomatic immunity from American law.
The Obama administration still has not publically commented on the order. However Interpol’s Secretary General, Ron Noble has issued an after-the fact-response to the order even though Interpol has not publically stated that American laws were interfering with their policing activities.
03-Jan-2010
President Obama’s recent executive order involving INTERPOL and his visit to the ‘Copenhagen’ climate summit have sparked increasing interest into the ideas of internalnational law and how it can apply to the United States; more specifically how the Obama administration envisions how it can apply to the United States. Some critiques on the left would have us believe that international law is irrelevant and that only a sovereign states law really matters. If this was true and internal law is in reality useless, then it would make no sense as to why so many countries devote so much time, money and effort into negotiating new legal regimes and augmenting existing ones. It would make our arguments about the legality of such rules, especially here in the United States, irrelevant. And there would be no need for organizations like the United Nations to exist. The topic that many statists and supporters of international law dodge is how these laws affect a nation’s sovereignty, in particular America.
01-Jan-2010
There are many speculations regarding President Obama’s secretive Executive Order 12425 that was made in the middle of the night on December 17, which grants full immunity to INTERPOL (the International Police Organization) on American soil. The order basically grants the foreign law enforcement agency some very broad powers to operate nearly unrestricted within the United States; exceeding even some of the most troubling aspects of the Patriot Act.
12-Nov-2009
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” This phrase is more applicable now than ever. For months now Americans have been telling and often shouting what they want and don’t want to their elected representatives with little results. House and Senate Democrats have continued to tell the American public that they know what is best for Americans, regardless how many of us picket their local offices or Tea Party Washington. Bottom line is they don’t want to listen. This healthscare bill is not about helping Americans. It’s about power. If the Democrat’s can get the American public hooked on Healthcare and other social dependency programs, then they feel that they will be able to remain in power indefinably because if people are dependent on the government for life they will vote for the Democratic party. This Democratic controlled 111th Congress and the Obama administration have shown us time and time again with their words and actions over the last year that they see American sovereignty as something that is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, economic status and the well-being of the state. This is statism through and through, and it’s time that the rest of America wakes up from its brainwashed utopia.
21-Oct-2009
Okay, I admit I just used that title to pull you into reading this. Apparently it worked if you’ve read this far. If you have a computer and an internet connection, then you’ve probably read or heard about the many looming court cases and questions regarding Obama’s eligibility for President of the United States.
06-Oct-2009
Category : Constitution, Gun Rights, Second Amendment
Once again the talk about gun rights is heating up, mostly due to Bobby Rush’s (D) H.R. 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 and the Obama administration’s appointment of anti-gun advocate Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The Act is much more than a forced registration of all firearms in America; it amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and would essentially establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership. Sound sort of non-ominous right? Well, even if the bill was drafted under the most thoughtful intentions, it is without a doubt a direct assault on the second amendment. If approved, the law would require gun owners to apply for five-year licenses to own firearms, and would give the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, broad authority over the entire program. Keep in mind that Eric Holder is a former Democratic prosecutor and a staunch supporter of extremely strict gun control.
The second amendment is very clear to me, “The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. By using the very definition of the word “infringe”, this Act and the anti-gun supporting actions of anti-gun lobbies and a few liberal members Congress would clearly indicate a move towards violating the rights of the American people guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Some people claim that this is a fringe bill and that it has virtually zero chances of becoming law. And that may be true, but do you think the attack on the second amendment will stop there? President Obama and Eric Holder aren’t the only members of this administration that have expressed their anti-gun plans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on record as wanting to confiscate all guns suitable for self defense and she wants to strictly regulate all hunting guns as well. This would have already been done had she believed it were politically possible to accomplish without breaking her party and damaging the President.
Whether you’re pro-gun or not, take a step back and think about the impact this will have on our nation and our Constitutional rights as whole. The second amendment is without a doubt a constitutional right recognized by a majority of Americans that is written and defined by our nation’s founders. If the liberal left can somehow get this right changed in some way to weaken it, then what is to stop them from changing anything else that is guaranteed by the Constitution that they do not like? What’s next, maybe the right to freedom of speech, certain parental rights or the right to practice the religion of your own choosing? Oh, wait what am I talking about….those rights are also under attack by the lefties, statists and totalitarians.
History has proven to us time and time again that dictators and tyrants have used firearms registration and gun control measures as the first step toward gun confiscation and citizen disarmament….which also leads to other losses of civil rights. Don’t think that could happen to America? Research German history during the 1940’s under Hitlers rule; they didn’t think it could happen to them either.
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.” – John F. Kennedy
15-Sep-2009
Gun rights. It’s an issue that comes up in just about any election, from congressional elections, to gubernatorial elections, to Presidential elections. For conservatives, the Second Amendment is part of the conservative creed. When you take a closer look at gun rights and the Second Amendment, in reality this is the way that the rest of our rights as Americans are protected.
Without the right to “keep and bear arms” the government can get away with anything. Imagine what would have happened when the colonies were controlled by England if those that were a part of the Revolutionary War were not allowed to keep and bear arms. If that were the case, this country as we know it would not exist today.
You see, without the ability to keep and bear arms, the rest of our rights are in jeopardy. There is no way to preserve freedom if our right to bear arms is taken away, and our forefathers foresaw that, which is why they added the Second Amendment to the constitution.
Unfortunately, it appears that in spite of President Obama’s supposed stance for gun rights during his campaign, that ultimately his views really lie in the anti-gun rights camp. A mere look at his idea of “common sense” gun laws makes any conservative and gun owner take pause.
While there are many issues out there that conservatives are combating today, such as health care and cap-and-trade, we can’t forget about gun rights. The spotlight has been focused on health care in the past couple of months, but meanwhile HR-45 has been introduced to committee legislation. Although this bill has not passed committee, it is worthy of note if you value your Second Amendment Rights.
First of all, it’s worth mentioning that the person behind HR-45 happens to be Bobby Rush. He is another Chicago politician, and seems to follow the same opinions of other Chicago politicians, such as Rahm Emmanuel and President Barack Obama.
So what’s actually in HR-45? You’d be surprised. It’s enough to give gun owners a heart attack. The legislation that is proposed will do the following things:
- Requires those owning guns to have a special firearm license.
- Prohibit you from transferring firearms to members of your family unless they have a firearm license that is valid ( A gun dealer must check out this license as well).
- Charges fees from gun owners each year.
- Requires that the Attorney General (aka. Eric Holder) has a record system that includes records of every person that owns a gun, including their address and other information.
- For not complying with things like notifying the office of the Attorney General within 60 days of moving, not reporting the loss off a gun within 72 hours, and other offences, gun owners can end up in jail.
Of course, there is far more to HR-45 than just these things I’ve chosen to highlight. Will it get passed? Maybe…maybe not. The important thing is that as conservatives we speak out for our Second Amendment rights. This is the right that preserves our other Constitutional Rights, and if we lose this right, we’ll lose the rest of them too. I, for one, am not about to see that happen.
© American Political Analysis
04-Sep-2009
Category : CZAR, Constitution, Green
For years America has been bombarded with environmental activism, with little affect on the lives of everyday citizens. Well I’m afraid those days are long gone, and have been ever since Al Gore started to push his Global Warming ideologies and agenda onto the public and private sectors of American society. As annoying as the Global Warming debate was…it was somewhat tolerable because it seemed to be a government issue and not a citizen issue.
The Green movement in most people’s eyes is probably viewed as something like living for a cleaner environment by recycling materials, reducing carbon footprints and the like, but is that really the case? In recent weeks the Green Movement has received plenty of media coverage with the appointment of Van Jones, the new Green Czar for the Obama Administration. Jones, a proclaimed Communist, and ” 9/11 truther“, had given an interview to ‘Uprising Radio’ back in 2008 in which he revealed much about his “green thumb” ideologies, including his philosophy on “planting a seed and letting it grow”.
While America has been distracted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the failing economy and housing market; Green advocates have been silently pushing their agenda…all the way to the top. The Green movement is no longer just satisfied with creating a healthy planet where we live in harmony with nature. The Green advocates have been plotting on ways to change America’s way of living, along with some of your civil liberties in the process. So if the Green movement isn’t all about being one with nature then what’s this all about? One word: Control.
How would Green advocates within the current administration take control?, by imposing new restrictions and regulations that are designed to reorder our society. This isn’t some kind of loony conspiracy theory, this is for real and it’s happening right now. The government is sending us all a message to live with less while it consumes and spends our tax dollars on pork barrel projects and bailouts to constituents. Green ideologues that are close to the Obama administration are just waiting for the chance to begin dictating to the American people (through Laws and restrictions) how to live their lives.
Can we really dismiss their words as exaggerations of the “truth” when they themselves have stated their intentions? They have on countless occasions stated in public and private that they intend to force and squeeze their agenda onto us all. Once the Greens achieve their goals of controlling and regulating what kind of car you can drive, how much you pay for electricity, what you eat, etc, what would stop them (and the Government) from controlling other areas of your private life? In reality, as seen by the countless comments and audio clips of those that support the Green agenda…it can be accurately stated that those that support the Green agenda, such as Van Jones and even President Obama, nothing is too trivial or off the table when it comes to pushing their agenda into our lives.
© American Political Analysis
28-Aug-2009
Recently Glen Beck did a compelling and informative TV show about Obama’s campaign idea regarding a Civilian National Security force…Glen pointed out that it looks like it may in fact be slowly forming under the guise of groups like STORM, AmeriCorps, ACORN and the like. Many of these groups have received hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding (tax payers money) and are sharing top leaders within their respective organizations.
Obama’s Civilian National Security Force (Video Link)
The word “Force” at the end of the name is a bit concerning for me, considering that “a force is any external agent that causes a change in the motion of a free body”. Beck brought up some valid concerns though…Why exactly do we need a civilian national force as strong as the military? Who will be in it? Who will they report to? And who will they be fighting against exactly?
When I heard Glenn talk about this with his guests, I instantly thought of the fictional corporation called Multinational United (MNU), a private military contractor in the movie District 9. The quasi military like organization was not officially run by the government, but in the end it did the governments dirty work.
Do I think that Obama is trying to create a MNU or Schutzstaffel like organization, no…at least not yet. But I do believe that President Obama and the Democrats are trying very hard to re-shape America into a multicultural-multinational government dependant society…much like Europe.
The past few months have shown us how this administration will deal with those that oppose its agenda, which can be clearly seen with its attack on free speech in regards to Conservative talk radio, Tea Party and Town Hall protesters and even encouraging us to spy on each-other. Anyone perceived to be affiliated with groups (religious, political, social and otherwise) that oppose the Obama camp or Democrat agenda, or is seen to have views contradictory to the goals of the government are labeled, verbally “rounded up” and mischaracterized by the pro-Obama media. So the question of “Who will they be fighting against exactly?” comes up again. Will their goal be to out organize the voices of the Conservative Right, or to shut us up completely?
Every day it seems as if the Obama Administration is secretly doing more behind the curtain, only giving the people bits and pieces of the truth to keep us confused and guessing as to what is coming next. All of this coming from an Administration that promised transparency, full disclosure of its actions, in an open, two-way dialogue directly with the American people. So I ask you this…considering what has happened thus far and what we know is planned for our future, do you doubt the idea of a Civilian National Security Force and are you concerned? You should be.
© American Political Analysis
09-Jul-2009
Category : Constitution, US Government
Imagine an America where we had the same President over and over, term after term. Sounds like a bad idea right? Well in early January of 2009 Rep. José Serrano, a New York Democrat, had proposed a congressional House resolution to make an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
There are countries or nation states that have changed their constitutions to allow unlimited runs for top public offices…hence we have Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Comrade Bob Mugabe, and Manuel Zelaya. History has shown us that this process does not work out well for the people of these nations.
Much on the internet about this bill sounds like a conspiracy theory digest written by Dan Brown, but the truth is this political ideology is real. History proves that without a doubt. There are many people in the political world that think that this is a good idea. Some would even go as far to say that President Obama himself supports this process and intends to bring it to the United States of America. Obama’s recent criticisms of the defenders of the Honduran constitution and then support for Zelaya and his Marxist dictator allies would only seem to support that theory.
Some political strategists would have you believe that a dictatorship like this would never happen in America. And 20 years ago I would have agreed with them. However, this is a new era, and a new generation at the helm now. As unimaginable as it sounds, there are events that appear to be slowly falling into place to make this a real possibility. It’s important to take a hard look at how the political left is working to consolidate power within the United States and secure all elements of our great country. They are moving fast and in multiple directions. It has not even been a full year yet and already our new Democrat President and his Democrat controlled Congress are starting to show their true colors by reviving talk about the Fairness Doctrine, trying to pass legislation to limit or restrain gun ownership, putting the US under control of an International Court system, taking control of the census and vigorously trying to come up with a passable legislation to grant illegal aliens voting status, knowing full well that they tend to vote Democrat a majority of the time.
Conspiracy theories aside, what is happening now sounds a lot like what conservative talk show host/author Mark Levin says is a soft tyranny. History and the people of this great nation will be the ultimate judge. The question is will we wait until the damage is already done, like the Hitler era Germans did? Or will we be proactive and educate ourselves about what is coming and make those critical decisions to avoid tyranny?
Definition: Tyranny - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition).
© American Political Analysis
10-Feb-2009
Category : Constitution
By Keith Sipmann
Freedom of religion and the first amendment have been a hot topic for some time now. However many people may have misunderstood what the wording means. The wording of the Bill of Rights is not ambiguous, yet many people who want to expand government power have chipped away and attempted to modify its meaning throughout our history.
Many Liberal groups (such as the ACLU) would have us believe that the First Amendment established a wall or a “separation of church and state”; however those words appear nowhere in the actual amendment. The amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The phrase “separation of church and state,” actually comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists (which was seeking reassurance that their religious liberty would be guaranteed) in which he was informing them that no religion was going to have a monopoly in the government.
Thomas Jefferson was against the domination and even legislation of religious sectarianism. Jefferson was definitely not trying to rid the government of religious influences; which can be proven by the fact that he endorsed using government buildings for church meetings. In fact two days after Jefferson sent that famous letter to the Danbury’s; he attended church in the same place where he always had as President…the U.S. Capital.
This information can be verified through the 1801-1809 Library of Congress notes.
© American Political Analysis
05-Feb-2009
Category : Constitution, Gun Rights, Supreme Court
By Keith Sipmann
Some historians and political figures would argue that the intention of the 2nd Amendment was not to protect an individual’s right to own guns, or to provide the people with the means to defend themselves from their own government should there ever be a need to do so.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the United States Bill of Rights, declares that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The meaning and scope of this right has been among the most contested of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights. Some scholars think that “the people” referred to in the second amendment are in fact not the same people that are referred to in the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments. Yet Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most prominent Founding Fathers, once himself stated “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers; The Second Amendment Goes to Court, Saul Cornell, OSU.edu, 11/7/08)
Over the years much focus has been given to the actual words of the amendment and its meaning. Many historians and political figures who favor the so-called “collective rights” interpretation believe that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to bear arms within the context of a well regulated militia and not as an individual. Conversely supporters of the “individual right” interpretation view the right to bear arms as a right vested by individuals. These supporters believe that the 2nd Amendment is much like the 1st Amendments right to freedom of speech in that it applies to the actual people. (Gun Owners of America, 12/01). This very issue was highly publicized in June of 2008 when the Supreme Court struck down a gun ban law in Washington, D.C., and interpreted the meaning of the 2ndAmendment to be in alignment with the “individual right” interpretation. The court maintained that “bear” meant to “carry” basing its interpretation of the text using contemporary dictionaries. (The 2nd Amendment Comes Back from Court, Saul Cornell, 11/08)
James Madison and the other founding fathers were very well aware that the new government they were creating could turn dishonest or corrupt and they wanted a way for the people to defend themselves from it if necessary. Still many believe that the 2nd Amendment did not originally intend to give the people the right to defend themselves against their government. However it is believed by some, including the National Rifle Association, that when James Madison originally proposed his version of this amendment that he intended on inserting it into the Constitution’s Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4. This section of the bill mentions several areas related to civil rights that are used by citizens to defend themselves against the government. Therefore one could only assume that since this is where Madison wanted his insertion of the 2nd Amendment to go, that he must have understood the right to bear arms as an individual right. (Our 2nd Amendment: The Original Perspective, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, 10/99)
To support this self defense from government idea, Thomas Jefferson even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that if a government failed to protect its citizens and instead became their enemy, they had the right to defend against it and even overthrow it. Therefore in conclusion one could reasonably assume that our Founding fathers shared a common belief that the people had the right to be protected and armed not only for defense against external enemies such as the Indians, but also their own government as well. (Our 2nd Amendment: The Original Perspective, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, 10/99)
© American Political Analysis
Headlines
