SoS John Kerry Commits U.S. to Anti-2nd Amendment U.N. Arms Treaty

During the Bush vs John Kerry election, the Swift Boat Veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam, made it very clear how he was a turncoat who could not be trusted to run this country.

Those words now echo as Secretary of State John Kerry committed the U.S. to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that would allow our 2nd Amendment rights to be arbitrarily taken away.....

From Investor's Business Daily --

As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week.

Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.

Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."

We have noted that a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse?"

"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Secretary of State Kerry tried to reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality, thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire U.S. were a "gun-free zone."

As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.

"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate measures,' an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.

The ATT, Heritage warns, "could create a national registry (initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the final end user.. ."

Stop Online Sales Tax -- Call Your Senator Today!

Looking for anyway to continue squeezing a penny from the American citizens and businesses in order to continue their out of control spending, the U.S. Senate is again considering an online sales tax in their budget talks....

From The Daily Caller --

Lawmakers are again trying to attach an online sales tax to larger legislation they consider more likely to pass.

The Marketplace Fairness Act, which would allow states to levy sales taxes on goods purchased online, is being proposed as an amendment to the Senate budget for fiscal year 2014 by bill cosponsors Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi and Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin.

In the last session of Congress, the bill was proposed as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, but the move failed.

Though many lawmakers initially signed on to this year’s version of the Marketplace Fairness Act, including many Republicans, momentum for the bill has slowed.

There has been talk that the bill may be added to a larger comprehensive tax reform bill, though some feel that the measure should remain a separate bill.

The Senate budget proposal — the first unveiled in the upper chamber since 2009 — is expected to be debated through the week.

Call your U.S. Senator and tell them to vote NO on The Marketplace Fairness Act!

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH)

Phone: (202)224-3353

Contact: https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Phone: (202)224-2315

Contact: http://www.brown.senate.gov/contact

To find the contact information for the U.S. Senator of your state click here.

Assault Weapons Ban "Shot Down" in the Senate

Like a clay pigeon at a Trap-Shooting Range, Senator Harry Reid shot down Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban.

Due to a lack of support in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, Reid pulled Feinstein's anti-gun proposals from the main bill, but said he would allow them to be offered up as separate amendments.....

From The Hill --

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided the federal assault weapons ban will not be a part of the base bill and warned Tuesday an expansion of background checks to cover private sales might not make the cut, either.

Instead, a bipartisan measure cracking down on straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms will serve as the foundation of firearms legislation.

That is a significant blow to Obama, who recently touted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had advanced “three of the most important elements of my proposal to help reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country.”

Obama’s three pillars have been reduced to one, with the bill facing an uncertain future in the GOP-led House.

Reid said the assault weapons ban sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which faces staunch opposition from the gun rights group, could have sunk the entire legislative effort.

Reid told Feinstein that he would give her a vote on the assault weapons ban, which includes curbs on high-capacity clips, and a second vote on a stand-alone amendment to ban high-capacity bullet magazines.

In response to Reid pulling her assault weapons and magazine ban from the Gun Bill, Feinstein, having less than 40 votes in support of her proposals, cackled back... 

“This is very important to me and I’m not gong to lay down and play dead,” she said on CNN. “I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation.”

“If it’s an amendment, it’s not a symbolic vote,” she said. “I did the bill in 1994 on the floor as an amendment. It was enacted there, it went on the House, and it was enacted there.”

Having far less than enough support, Feinstein's anti 2nd Amendment proposals will most likely be shot down again when offered up as amendments.

And, if for some reason the gun bill passes out of the Senate with Feinstein's amendments, as long as the GOP members in the GOP-controlled House remember they are conservative and supposed to support our 2nd Amendment rights, and as long as Speaker John Boehner is not having another "I Love Obama" moment, there should be no chance of it passing out of the House like it did in 1994.

Big Brother Alert: Police Want Wireless Providers to Save Your Text Messages

From Mashable --

The same day that Google is asking Congress to strengthen privacy protections for Americans' emails, the cops are arguing that U.S. law should require cellphone providers to store text messages logs in the event authorities need to read them in the course of a criminal investigation.

According to the proposal, backed by a coalition of law-enforcement associations, wireless companies like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile would have to record and store customer's text messages for at least two years, as first reported by CNET last year.

Richard Littlehale, a supervisor with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, testified this morning in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, echoing the law-enforcement coalition's proposal. In his prepared remarks (PDF), Littlehale lamented that the cellphone companies don't retain text messages, a practice that "can hinder law enforcement investigations."

"Billions of texts are sent every day, and some surely contain key evidence about criminal activity," he said. "In some cases, this means that critical evidence is lost." And that's why he thinks cops should have a chance to go to cellphone providers and get their hands on old text messages if they need to, "with appropriate legal process, for at least some period of time."

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was live-tweeting the hearing this morning, Littlehale said he would like carriers to keep the information for one year.

Nowadays, data retention policies vary from carrier to carrier and there's no uniform law mandating the companies to store information for a determined amount of time. Companies don't publicize their data retention policies, but throughout the years, activists' and reporters have been able to piece together some scattered information.

SEE ALSO: Senators Want Police to Get Warrant Before Reading Your Emails

In 2011, through a Freedom of Information Act request, the American Civil Liberties Union obtained an internal Justice Department memo showing that as of 2010, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint didn't store the contents of text messages, while Verizon kept them for just 3 to 5 days, and Virgin Mobile for 90 days.

In 2011, Anonymous gained access to the Gmail account of a retired supervisor of the San Diego-based multi-agency Computer and Technology Crime Hightech Response Team. In an email received by the retired supervisor Alfredo Baclagan, and sent by Baltimore detective Rich Peacock, the latter discusses providers' data retention policies, confirming Verizon's and AT&T's policy and revealing differences with the rest. "Sprint stores their text message content going back 12 days and Nextel content for 7 days. [...] Us Cellular: 3-5 days Boost Mobile LLC: 7 days," reads the email, published on Wired's blog Threat Level.

In his conclusion, Littlehale emphasized the importance of giving law enforcement access to information that can help track down criminals, as well as the importance of balancing that with people's privacy interests.

"Just as there is no question that people have an interest in preserving the privacy of that information," he said. "There can be no question that some of that information holds the keys to finding an abducted child, apprehending a dangerous fugitive, or preventing a terrorist attack."

"Just Voting 'No'" isn't what the Tea Party Does

From Tea Party Patriots --

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday,” former nine-term Republican Member of Congress Steve LaTourette from Ohio said several dozen Tea Party-minded Members of Congress consistently vote “No” for the simple reason that voting “No” is what impresses the Tea Party. From Mediaite, the video clip and the following description of what LaTourette said:

“I don’t think I would say it is all Tea Party freshmen, it is those who seem more interested in voting no and going home than governing,” said LaTourette when asked by Wallace to explain the position.

And later in the Mediaite outline:

LaTourette proceeded to reiterate his point saying that the Tea Party members are an important part of the GOP but that they can’t just throw their hands up at everything and say no. They have to work together with others if they want to get anything done, he said.

“Just voting no and then holding your nose and saying ‘boy if it passes I can go home to my local Tea Party groups and say ‘I voted no!’ that’s ridiculous. That’s what makes them chuckleheads,” said LaTourette.

LaTourette’s disdain for constituent manipulation by so-called “chuckleheads” hits both ways. A number of Members have run on the Tea Party label and then voted for legislation that increased the size and scope of the federal government. Of course, by the same token, LaTourette’s point is accurate for some who claim the Tea Party mantle. Human beings are imperfect, and many or most Members are more concerned about re-election than what’s good for the nation. Thus, yes, some allegedly Tea Party Members of Congress would prefer to vote “No” in order to impress the Tea Party activists in their districts. ,

More relevantly, though, to accuse the House of simply saying “No” to important legislation (the fiscal cliff’s “Plan B,” which would have raised taxes on millionaires, was praised as a good opening gambit by LaTourette in the negotiations happening at that time) is to ignore the facts. Consider just three examples of Tea Party-minded Members of Congress often voting for good legislation:

• According to the House Majority Leader’s website, 40 jobs bills passed the House in the 112^th Congress. Only 11 of those were signed by the President.
• Tea Party-minded Members supported the House budget resolution last year, as well as the Republican Study Committee’s budget. Senate Democrats haven’t even passed a budget in four years, and President Obama’s last budget proposal was so unserious that it got zero votes in Congress.
• Tea Party-minded Members of Congress voted for the compromise law known as the Budget Control Act – which, within 18 months, was delayed and nearly overturned by a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said it perfectly to Tea Party Patriots Local Coordinators last November – compromise is fine, as long as the ball is moved in the right direction. (The Senator cited raising the retirement age to 69, though he preferred going to 70.) Unfortunately, leadership in both parties tends to want legislation that would violate principles, and put “compromise” on the side of growing government.

This is where LaTourette’s comments lead – compromise for its own sake. As Tea Party Patriots explained earlier this year, go along to get along compromise is far too common in Washington, and extremely harmful to the nation.

Boehner and Obama Sittin' in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

In spite of all the phony bravado  and tough talk of Speaker John Boehner lately, he once again, allows his true colors to show. 

Showing he is truly part of the Establishment Elite class that is destroying our country and that he is unfit to be Speaker, in a recent interview, Boehner fawned over the trust he has for his golfing pal President Barack Obama.

From the Washington Examiner -- (Emphasis Added)

House Speaker John Boehner says he "absolutely" trusts President Barack Obama — not that they don't have their differences.

Boehner tells ABC's "This Week" that the two have a good relationship and that they're "open with each other ... honest with each other." But the Ohio lawmaker says they're trying to bridge some big differences.

One issue they agree on: The U.S. doesn't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt.

So there you go -- the man supposedly leading the charge to cut the out of control spending in D.C., Speaker John Boehner - feels our current debt of over $16.7 Trillion is not an immediate crisis! 

You can thank you GOP Congress member for 2 yrs more of these Beltway Blood Brothers from different Mothers -- Barack & Boehner.

Tea Party Patriots: "A Movement on Fire" (Video)

In what Roger Ebert called the "Hunger Games" meets "Brave New World", Tea Party Patriots released the trailer for their new movie "A Movement On Fire" at CPAC this past weekend.

The movie is about the "Liberty Party" standing up and fighting against the "Development Party" taking away the liberty & freedoms of Americans.

You can watch the trailer below....