The Obama Administration, The Democrat Political Party, And The UN Will Cancel The 2nd Amendment - UPDATED

 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may prefer “No Labels” but in his case, many feel “gun grabber” is a pretty fitting one. As part of his misguided crusade to tighten up gun laws nationally, The New York Times reports that Hizzoner sent undercover cops to gun shows in Arizona and found they were violating the law (ctrl-click HERE to launch video alert by Dick Morris). Image Credit: weaselzippers.us

The Obama Administration, The Democrat Political Party, And The UN Will Cancel The 2nd Amendment

Do the words LAME Duck mean anything to you? What does international treaty and its application to the laws of a sovereign country mean to the people of said sovereign country?

Well, the answers to these two questions and the effect on our freedoms here in the United States may have real and serious consequences to our way of life as the Obama Administration, the Democrat political party, and the United Nations seek to curb access to ones self-protection and self-determination here in the United States through a treaty.

Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI database, but they must cancel a sale if they have reason to believe the buyer would fail such a review. Image Credit: nashvillescene.com



This excerpted and edited from ConsortiumNews -

Seeking Rules for the World’s Guns
By Paul R. Pillar / x-CIA analyst - July 9, 2012

A conference opened last week under the auspices of the United Nations to draft a multilateral treaty aimed at controlling the international trade in conventional arms. Such a treaty potentially could do significant good, although many legitimate questions remain concerning its terms and feasibility.

Neither the good nor the bad is likely to be clarified in public discussion about the treaty within the nation that is the world’s biggest arms exporter and thus the most important player in this process: the United States. We are more likely to hear the sort of ill-informed debate that too often has characterized treatment of multilateral conventions, as we have seen most recently with the law of the sea treaty.

The background of the prospective arms-trade treaty being discussed in New York should make politicization of the issue in the United States unsurprising. A resolution of the U.N. General Assembly intended to advance the subject in 2006 passed with 153 states in favor, twenty-four abstentions and a vote against by the United States. Three years later, the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty.
----
What debate has already taken place in the United States on the prospective treaty has featured some of the same infringement-of-sovereignty notions that were heard in opposing ratification of the law of the sea convention. In the case of the prospective arms-trade treaty, the National Rifle Association has been out in front with warnings about how the treaty supposedly would circumvent the Second Amendment.
----
Some of the legitimate reasons to raise doubts about an arms-trade treaty concern its effectiveness — and its effect on the arms balances in local conflicts — given the extent of gray-market arms dealing outside the control of governments that would be parties to the treaty.

Other legitimate concerns involve the inevitable differences of view in trying to develop criteria for proscribing or limiting arms transfers and in applying any such criteria consistently in different areas of conflict. One man’s contribution to local security is another man’s stoking of regional instability.

Informed debate about these and other legitimate concerns is likely to be less prominent than ill-informed statements about such things as taking away the people’s right to bear arms. The fact that the conference in New York is scheduled to conclude its work near the end of this month — amid a U.S. presidential election campaign — will make the subject ripe for the crasser forms of politicization.

On U.S. insistence, the rules of the conference provide that unanimity is required for a draft treaty to emerge directly from it.
----
That will repeat the experiences of the law of the sea convention and the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, with all the uncertainties of the United States not being a party to a major element of otherwise widely accepted international law. If that happens, among those likely to be disappointed will be American arms exporters, who look favorably on an arms-trade treaty as a way of standardizing the many different national rules with which they now have to deal.
[Reference Here]

What this means, even though this former CIA analyst feels that the United States will not sign on to any treaty placed in front of it by the United Nations, is that world powers are desperate to find a way to control the freedom of access to firearms through "standardizing the many different national rules" worldwide regardless of their intent.

Again, "the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty" and we all know what that means to the average American citizen, the United States Constitution, and the desire by the progressive political class to apply CONTROL over the majority who believe that rights outlined by the 2nd Amendment are valid and unalterable.

Remember what happened with transparency during the healthcare debate in this country? Remember how most American citizens felt about the Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills and the results to our opposition to the expansion of government spending (an additional 6 Trillion dollars of debt and NO BUDGET in only 3.5 years)?

One of the main protections and rights outlined in the United States Constitution is about to be sold down the river in a "bow" to the world through a treaty put together by political progressives in the United Nation.

Here, during Carter's Second Term, to be clear - The Obama Administration, the Democrat political party, and the United Nations are teeing up to essentially cancel our 2nd amendment rights through the signing of an international treaty during the Lame Duck session (after the November 2012 election) of Congress.

UPDATE:

Farewell to the arms treaty – for now

Kenneth Epps – The Globe and Mail – Published Wednesday, Aug. 01 2012, 2:00 AM EDT
Lost in the hoopla of the opening ceremony of the Olympics, a vital international marathon of another kind ended Friday with a race suspension just before the finish line. At the United Nations in New York, a month of intensive multilateral negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to regulate international transfers of conventional weapons concluded without agreement, largely because the United States called for more time on the final day.

The U.S. announcement was a surprise. Just a few hours earlier, many participants were anticipating a positive outcome after Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina, who presided over the conference, introduced a revised text that gained widespread support.

For Control Arms, the international coalition of NGOs that has campaigned for a treaty for more than a decade, Mr. Moritan’s text was not perfect. 

The real reasons the United States pulled the plug are known only within the Obama administration, but many conference delegates suggested the impending U.S. presidential election was a factor.
—-
The ATT has been cynically portrayed by the National Rifle Association as a UN instrument to attack U.S. Second Amendment rights. That the U.S. gun lobby has deliberately misrepresented the treaty for its own ends is not in question. The question is whether the NRA message is believed by U.S. voters, and the assessment of the administration appears to be yes.
—-
[This is troubling] Fortunately, the ATT process did not end on Friday. The United States has called for the negotiating conference to reconvene in 2013, again operating on a consensus basis. Other countries may not wait that long nor be willing to negotiate under a consensus constraint.
[Reference Here]

----

** Article first published as Obama Administration, Democratic Party, and UN Will Cancel the 2nd Amendment on Technorati **

Obama Administration Delivers Another Swift Kick To The Gut

"Middle class is also an attitude. It's not just about income, it's about knowing what's important, and not measuring your success just based on your bank account ... It's about your values, and being responsible, and looking after each other, and giving back." - President Obama speaking in Parma, Ohio. Image Credit: BarackObama.com

 Obama Administration Delivers Another Swift Kick To The Gut

The economy added 80,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported Friday, after a revised increase of 77,000 in May. The unemployment rate remained at 8.2 percent.

Economists are expecting tepid job growth for the rest of the year, too.

Soon after the June unemployment numbers were announced, Mitt Romney made the following live statement from Wolfeboro, N.H., where he and his family were vacationing.,  “This is a time for Americans to choose whether they want more of the same, it doesn’t have to be this way. America can do better. And this kick in the gut has to end.”

Real unemployment, when judged factoring in with those who have given up looking for work, but want to work - 10.1%.

President Barack Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt responded in a statement.

“The President brought us back from the brink of another Depression but he doesn’t believe our work is done -- he’s got a plan to restore the middle class and create a million jobs now that Mitt Romney opposes and Republican leaders have blocked," LaBolt's statement read in part. "Mitt Romney says he has a better path, but over the past decade we saw where that took us -- to the slowest job growth since World War II, the collapse of our financial system and the deterioration of the middle class."

President Obama, on the second day of his campaign buscapade across Ohio and Pennsylvania, told supporters the creation of 80,000 jobs last month is "a step in the right direction," albeit a small step. This number barely covers the growth in population let alone the number of jobs it would take to begin a track for recovery and growth ... that number is in access of 300,000 jobs (look it up).

Little responsibility is taken by this 44th Presidency or its Administration, even though the policies they pursue continue and deepen this self-inflicted economic downturn on the American economy.

This excerpted and edited from a Mitt Romney 2012 press release -

Broken Record, Broken Promises
Mitt Romney Press | July 6, 2012

Today, the Obama Administration told Americans “not to read too much into” monthly jobs reports.
As it turns out, they’ve been encouraging Americans to do that for years. But after 41 straight months of unemployment over 8%, you don’t have to read between the lines to see the truth. President Obama’s policies have failed to get America working again.

June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.  It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)
[Reference Here]

The last three employment snapshots released by the Labor Department have been persistently weak, and marked a distinct slowdown from earlier in the year. In the latest report, the department said employers added a meager 80,000 jobs in June, leaving the unemployment rate unchanged at 8.2 percent. The number of jobs added in June was lower than expected, and rounded out a poor second quarter for 2012.

The average number of monthly jobs created in the first quarter of the year was 226,000 ... by contrast, that average in the second quarter was just 75,000.

Dismal June job figures could also prompt the Federal Reserve to take further action to try to boost the economy. The Fed last month downgraded its economic outlook for 2012. It predicted growth of just 1.9 percent to 2.4 percent for the year and little change in the unemployment rate.

All of this points out that after nearly four years of a central government expansion of debt and tinkering during Carter's Second Term, the best the Obama Administration can do is deliver another swift kick to the gut in a long line of kicks to the gut on the American people and the economy they have to live in.