For those interested in preserving their rights as enumerated under the US Constitution, this is suggested reading.
"Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control
by Brian Darling 05/04/2009
"Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.
On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled "A World Drowning in Guns" where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international "marking and tracing regime." He complained that "the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way." Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. "to submit information about their small arms production."
Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power "to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations." Koh feels that U.S. should "establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters" of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.
Taken to their logical conclusion, Koh's ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom should read his speech
Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh's extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America.
FDA Regulation of Tobacco
As if the federal government weren't interfering enough in your daily decisions, now officials want to greatly expand the FDA's regulatory power over tobacco. The House has passed a bill that would, among other things, allow the FDA to regulate nicotine and mandate more warnings about the health risks of tobacco. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is spoiling for a fight when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid schedules a vote on the bill. Let's hope others join the fight against an ever-expanding federal government.
The First Amendment Under Attack
Many conservatives are aware of the now-infamous DHS report on "rightwing extremism" -- as well they should be. This report said that the possible passage of gun control legislation, the election of the first African American president, the economic downturn and the return of military veterans could lead to domestic terrorism: "Rightwing extremism in the United States ... may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single, issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." This report serves to demonize many elements of the conservative movement by characterizing them as potential radical domestic terrorists.
Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) have introduced a resolution requesting that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issue a formal apology to the nation's military personnel and veterans whom the report deems extremist because they are pro-life and/or hold other conservative views. It's an outrage that those who served this country honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan would be scrutinized by federal officials. Conservatives should be wary that the federal government may be monitoring conservative groups who differ with the president on policy grounds.
Energy Tax Hikes
This week, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and his top climate deputy, Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will try to advance the innocuously named American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACES). The bill, a de-facto energy tax, would undermine America's economic recovery and punish low- and middle-income families with staggering electricity price hikes.
A handful of moderate Democrats have joined Republicans to oppose such a scheme. The key difference is that, according to Roll Call, Waxman and Markey are meeting with hesitant Democrats members to find a bill that protects their own districts. This amounts to picking winners and losers behind closed doors, giving the politically connected a chance to avoid (if only for a year or two) the massive economic harm likely to occur.
President Obama has spoken eloquently about the need for transparency. Americans should demand similar, if not greater, transparency from Reps. Markey and Waxman. If they're going to pick winners and losers, they should do so openly."
"IT IS GETTING VERY SERIOUS NOW
By Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2009
"First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.
As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.
The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists."
As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.
According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'
"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'"
WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."
Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.
Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?
This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.
I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.
I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become?
If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)
This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?
As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now."
© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved