Archive for the ‘ President Barack Obama ’ Category

A Man Of War: Obama Starts Fourth War In the Elitists Plan to Continue to Destablize The Mid East

U.S. Is Intensifying a Secret Campaign of Yemen Airstrikes

By
Published: June 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.

The acceleration of the American campaign in recent weeks comes amid a violent conflict in Yemen that has left the government in Sana, a United States ally, struggling to cling to power. Yemeni troops that had been battling militants linked to Al Qaeda in the south have been pulled back to the capital, and American officials see the strikes as one of the few options to keep the militants from consolidating power.

On Friday, American jets killed Abu Ali al-Harithi, a midlevel Qaeda operative, and several other militant suspects in a strike in southern Yemen. According to witnesses, four civilians were also killed in the airstrike. Weeks earlier, drone aircraft fired missiles aimed at Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who the United States government has tried to kill for more than a year. Mr. Awlaki survived.

The recent operations come after a nearly year-long pause in American airstrikes, which were halted amid concerns that poor intelligence had led to bungled missions and civilian deaths that were undercutting the goals of the secret campaign.

Officials in Washington said that the American and Saudi spy services had been receiving more information — from electronic eavesdropping and informants — about the possible locations of militants. But, they added, the outbreak of the wider conflict in Yemen created a new risk: that one faction might feed information to the Americans that could trigger air strikes against a rival group.

A senior Pentagon official, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said on Wednesday that using force against militants in Yemen was further complicated by the fact that Qaeda operatives have mingled with other rebels and antigovernment militants, making it harder for the United States to attack without the appearance of picking sides.

The American campaign in Yemen is led by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, and is closely coordinated with the Central Intelligence Agency. Teams of American military and intelligence operatives have a command post in Sana, the Yemeni capital, to track intelligence about militants in Yemen and plot future strikes.

Concerned that support for the campaign could wane if the government of Yemen’s authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, were to fall, the United States ambassador in Yemen has met recently with leaders of the opposition, partly to make the case for continuing American operations. Officials in Washington said that opposition leaders have told the ambassador, Gerald M. Feierstein, that operations against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should continue regardless of who wins the power struggle in Sana.

The extent of America’s war in Yemen has been among the Obama administration’s most closely guarded secrets, as officials worried that news of unilateral American operations could undermine Mr. Saleh’s tenuous grip on power. Mr. Saleh authorized American missions in Yemen in 2009, but placed limits on their scope and has said publicly that all military operations had been conducted by his own troops.

Mr. Saleh fled the country last week to seek medical treatment in Saudi Arabia after rebel shelling of the presidential compound, and more government troops have been brought back to Sana to bolster the government’s defense.

“We’ve seen the regime move its assets away from counterterrorism and toward its own survival,” said Christopher Boucek, a Yemen expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But as things get more and more chaotic in Yemen, the space for the Americans to operate in gets bigger,” he said.

But Mr. Boucek and others warned of a backlash from the American airstrikes, which over the past two years have killed civilians and Yemeni government officials. The benefits of killing one or two Qaeda-linked militants, he said, could be entirely eroded if airstrikes kill civilians and lead dozens of others to jihad.

Edmund J. Hull, ambassador to Yemen from 2001 to 2004 and the author of “High-Value Target: Countering Al Qaeda in Yemen,” called airstrikes a “necessary tool” but said that the United States had to “avoid collateral casualties or we will turn the tribes against us.”

Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen is believed by the C.I.A. to pose the greatest immediate threat to the United States, more so than even Qaeda’s senior leadership believed to be hiding in Pakistan. The Yemen group has been linked to the attempt to blow up a transatlantic jetliner on Christmas Day 2009 and last year’s plot to blow up cargo planes with bombs hidden inside printer cartridges.

Mr. Harithi, the militant killed on Friday, was an important operational figure in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was believed to be one of those responsible for the group’s ascendance in recent years. According to people in Yemen close to the militant group, Mr. Harithi travelled to Iraq in 2003 and fought alongside Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian operative who led the Qaeda affiliate in Iraq until he was killed in an American strike in 2006. Mr. Harithi returned to Yemen in 2004, those close to the militants said, where he was captured, tried and imprisoned in 2006 but released three years later.

Even as senior administration officials worked behind the scenes with Saudi Arabia for a transitional government to take power in Yemen, a State Department spokesman on Wednesday called on the embattled government in Sana to remain focused on dealing with the rebellion and Qaeda militants.

“With Saleh’s departure for Saudi Arabia, where he continues to receive medical treatment, this isn’t a time for inaction,” said the spokesman, Mark Toner.  “There is a government that remains in place there, and they need to seize the moment and move forward.”

Muhammad al-Ahmadi contributed reporting from Sana, Yemen, and Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane from Washington.

Advertisements

Federal Court May Overturn Obamacare

Alabama 13
June 8, 2011

The latest round in the fight over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul was held Wednesday in the federal appeals court in Atlanta.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether to reverse a Florida judge’s ruling that struck down the law. The judges seemed receptive to arguments from critics challenging the health reforms as unconstitutional during the three-hour hearing.

Read entire article

Gadahn Call for Gun Violence Merges With Obama’s “Under the Radar” Anti-gun Agenda

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 5, 2011

Adam Pearlman, aka Adam Gadahn, has called for Muslims to fall on U.S. gun stores and gun shows, stock up on weapons, and start killing Americans. Pearlman’s remarks are contained in a video released on Friday.

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms,” said Gadahn, who is also known as Azzam al-Amriki, or Azzam the American.

“You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card.”

In fact, the federal government controls who owns fully automatic weapons. The federal government has also outlawed a number of semi-automatic weapons, which are classified as “assault weapons.”

Azzam al-Amriki has a very poor understanding of gun laws in the United States.

Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1,000 and a year in federal prison.

“Getting to these criminals [all Americans] isn’t as hard as you might think,” Pearlman said in his two hour video tape. “I mean, we’ve seen how a woman knocked the Pope to the floor during Christmas mass, and how Italian leader Berlusconi’s face was smashed during a public appearance. So it’s just a matter of entrusting the matter to Allah and choosing the right place, the right time and the right method.”

Gadahn’s call arrives as the Obama administration prepares to launch a concerted effort against gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

In April, Obama discussed his administration’s intentions concerning gun control with Jim and Sarah Brady, founders of the anti-gun group the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control). We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” Obama told them.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Gadahn’s hyped threat will add impetus to the call by the government to further roll back the Second Amendment. It will also act as fodder for the ongoing fake war on manufactured terror and its associated pro-war propaganda.

The fact Gadahn’s Jewish paternal grandfather, Carl Pearlman, was on the Board of Directors of the Anti-Defamation League has led more than a few people to believe there is something fishy about his conversion to radical Islam and joining al-Qaeda. According to the popular mythology, he is “translator, video producer, and cultural interpreter” to Osama bin Laden, who died before Pearlman joined the shadowy group named after a CIA database of Mujahideen warriors.

McCain Dethrones the Rule of Law

Link to article

 

Sneering at the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, Senator John McCain (R. Ariz.) bugled last week, “No president has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any [60 day] deadline” to obtain congressional authorization to continue hostilities against Libya ordained by the Act.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate effused over unlimited presidential war-making, insinuating that the downfall of the Republic would come from fighting too few wars, not too many: “Any President, Republican or Democrat, should be able to deploy armed forces whenever and wherever he deems necessary.” Earlier in his political career, Senator McCain admonished that Congress has no “right to declare peace,” and trumpeted: “[T]he fact is that the President of the United States is given the responsibility, the most grave responsibility of sending into harm’s way our greatest national treasure, our young men and women.”

Senator McCain’s blather betrayed a sub-literate understanding of the Constitution and infidelity to his oath of office. The latter requires him to demand the impeachment and removal of President Obama for the greatest usurpation of congressional authority in the history of the United States. Instead, the Senator is conspiring with the president to facilitate the usurpation.

On McCain’s gospel hangs an alarming tale. The rule of law has been dethroned and the president has been endowed with absolute power as the American Empire has eclipsed the American Republic.

Eleven score and fifteen years ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation dedicated to the proposition that the law is king. They recognized that crowning the president with power to commence war unilaterally would be the death knell of the Republic. Thomas Paine sermonized in Common Sense, the Bible of the American Revolution, that “as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

In times of war, the law is silent and the executive is omnipotent. The Founding Fathers thus erected constitutional barriers against fighting too many wars. None fretted about fighting too few. Arresting portions of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the explanatory Federalist Papers were devoted to safeguards against military supremacy and the overthrow of civilian government.

The most important check against gratuitous wars that squander the lives and limbs of brave American soldiers was Article I, section 8, clause 11. It fastened on Congress exclusive responsibility for commencing war. Legislative power diminishes in wartime. Legislators have no incentive to concoct danger or other excuses to abandon peace. The president, in contrast, is strongly tempted towards war to aggrandize power and earn a place on Mount Rushmore. James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated with signature genius in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Madison amplified in a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

James Wilson underscored at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention,

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our interest can draw us into war.

Abraham Lincoln exposed Senator McCain’s Orwellian warping of the Constitution:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

John Bassett Moore, an authoritative scholar of international law, observed:

There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson voiced alarm at presidential war-making in his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer:

[N]o doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

In sum, there is nothing in the text, subtext, context or judicial interpretation of the Constitution that empowers the president to initiate war without prior congressional authorization. Yet presidential lawlessness persists and metastasizes like a cancer without provoking congressional or public rebuke.

Executive branch violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act, or the Convention Against Torture are ignored. The state secrets privilege is invoked to deny victims redress for torture or comparable constitutional wrongdoing. Suspected “enemy combatants” are detained indefinitely without accusation or trial. Military commissions supersede civilian courts. The United States claims unique authority to attack with predator drones or otherwise any nation on the planet to advance professed humanitarian causes, “regional stability,” or the credibility of the United Nations Security Council.

The Department of Treasury or Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve print or spend money without proper congressional oversight or direction. Annual Pentagon spending approaching $1 trillion is not audited.

Depend upon it. The day will soon come when the president usurps the congressional power to tax and to spend to address an asserted economic emergency with impunity. Most Members of Congress will meekly submit to vassalage and rejoice at their escape from responsibility for anything non-trivial.

The final destruction of the Republic can be prevented if the American people vote to oust every Member of Congress and every president unfaithful to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.

That would mark one of history’s finest hours in self-government.

Obama solicitor general: “If you don’t like mandate, earn less money!”

By: Philip Klein 06/02/11 12:52 PM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein

President Obama’s solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.)  The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government’s defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there’s a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this…the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn’t necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel’s concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you’re in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge’s question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.

Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”

Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.

The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”

Graham acknowledged Kaytal’s arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”

The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.

For instance, the example that’s come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.

During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn’t apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.

Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn’t difficult to see where that argument can go.

The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There’s no doubt that a huge driver of our nation’s health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation’s health care expenses, a number that’s set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?

With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn’t actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.

The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida.

Gun Control Laws Are A CLEAR Violation of our 2nd Amendment rights! Our Rights are Under Attack!

Our Constitution CLEARLY States the following:

 

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States:

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 clause in the 2nd amendment ‘Shall not be infringed’ clearly states that gun control laws are unconstitutional.  Our lawmakers and victims of gun crimes seem to be under the impression that guns are the problem more so than the individual who has committed the crime.  This is clearly an irresponsible take on reality.  Statistics have indeed shown that an armed society equals less violent crime. There are news stories all over the United States of the ATF seizing weapons of citizens because of the quantity and quality of guns found. Notice that our constitution does not impose limitations as to the quantity or quality of arms that we may possess even after the amendment was ratified.  The government and the news media automatically label these people as being a threat to society and peace even though no crime has yet to be committed until the ATF steps in and seizes the weapons usually ending up in an unfortunate shootout.  The government controls the media and the media is quick to propagandize and Americans are like sheep believing most of what is reported in the news including the tone of what is being reported.  For those fortunate to question everything that is being reported in the news, when doing so the blinders are completely off and unfortunately the government see’s free thinkers and constitutionalists such as myself as a threat to homeland security.  It’s clear that the intention of our government is to break our will, dumb us down and to accept that it is ok to trade in our freedoms for safety and security. Yet the government continues to slowly erode our constitution into oblivion such as an example in this Fox news article:

 

Obama Administration Eyeing Gun Control ‘Under the Radar,’ Groups Warn

By Judson Berger

Published May 28, 2011

| FoxNews.com

 

  •   Print
  •   Email
  •   Share
  •   Comments (4072)

 

 

 

AP

President Obama makes a statement to reporters during his meeting with Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Deauville, France, May 26.

The Obama administration, after keeping gun control on the back burner for over two years, is prompting concern among gun rights groups that it’s slowly starting to squeeze the trigger on tighter regulation. 

In the wake of the January shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, President Obama remained mostly quiet on the firearms front as lawmakers clamored for new restrictions. But the president has since made a public call for tougher background checks. The Justice Department launched a series of meetings with officials and advocates to examine gun control policy. And while gun-control bills in Congress have languished, the administration has started to chip around the edges with its own proposals. 

“They’re doing a pretty good job … as Obama has said, ‘under the radar.’ There’s a lot going on under that radar,” Gun Owners of America Director Larry Pratt said, referring to a remark Obama reportedly made in a private meeting with gun control advocates. “They’ve shown us how much they are prepared to do through regulation.” 

Pratt pointed to two proposals in particular. Under one proposed rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, dealers in four Southwestern states would be required to report multiple sales to the same person of certain kinds of rifles. The proposed requirement — which would apply to dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas — is open for comment until the end of May. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence claims the change would help the ATF “crack down” on Mexico’s gunrunners. 

In addition, ATF released a study in January that looked at criteria for restricting the importation of certain shotguns. The authors were working off a 1968 law that restricts gun imports but exempts firearms used for “sporting purposes.” The report, then, tried to define which features on shotguns are not suitable for “sporting purposes” and therefore not importable — among the features they flagged are folding stocks, magazines over five rounds and “light enhancing devices.” 

 

The National Rifle Association has come out strong against this study. 

Pratt said the shotgun restrictions, if approved, could lead to broader restrictions on other imported long guns — at a time when the administration is trying to reduce federal regulations. Pratt also cited a decision last year to block the sale of U.S.-made antique rifles by the South Korean government to gun collectors in America. The State Department said at the time it was concerned the guns could fall into the wrong hands. 

These smaller-scale proposals come in lieu of sweeping restrictions like the assault-weapons ban Obama supported as a candidate but has not pursued as president. Another proposal on the table calls for banning high-capacity magazines, but it has not advanced in Congress. 

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., sponsor of that bill, has had trouble moving forward on the proposal in a GOP-dominated House and winning an endorsement from Obama — despite having 107 co-sponsors. 

“That’s just something we haven’t heard the president say anything about,” McCarthy spokesman Shams Tarek told FoxNews.com. 

Tarek stressed that the magazine ban wouldn’t exactly be treading new ground — it would reinstate an expired ban. “There’s a precedent there,” he said. But Tarek said the Obama administration is “very, very much in listening mode,” not revealing one way or the other which way it’s leaning on gun control. 

The most detailed statement to come out of the administration so far was the president’s March op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star, in which he pushed for better background checks. Obama stressed his belief in the “individual right to bear arms,” but said “there’s more we can do to prevent gun violence.” 

Based on the column, Tarek suggested the administration was with McCarthy and her allies when it comes to a new push to strengthen background checks. A bill she introduced earlier this month would impose stricter penalties on states that fail to enter the names of people prohibited from buying guns into a national database. And it would require background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows. 

The move was hailed by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which claimed it would fix “glaring gaps” in the background check system. 

But gun-rights groups are urging Washington against going down this road. National statistics show gun sales are going up while violent crime is edging down slightly. Though gun-related deaths and injuries still number in the tens of thousands every year, the groups say enforcement is the key. 

“The American public does not support gun control. … What the American public wants is for criminals to be punished for their mistakes,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said. 

The NRA and other groups have also harshly criticized the administration for its own gun-control problem — a Justice Department project by which hundreds of guns were allowed to “walk” across the border and into the hands of Mexican cartels.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/28/obama-administration-eyeing-gun-control-radar-groups-warn/#ixzz1NgYNI6Qy

 

 

The only way this country is going to savor what little we have left of our rights under the constitution is to ‘Wake Up’ and expose these minions for what they are…global elitists whose intent is to enslave the public and practice the evils of eugenics in order to adopt what is commonly referred to as ‘The Perfect Society’. But when people state things in this way they are looked upon as being crazy conspiracy theorist and these critics who label these ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ are more than willing to allow themselves to be dumbed down and blinded by the new world order globalist society which is the intention of the global elitist…or society is falling for it hook line and sinker.  The only way to preserve our rights is to wake up and speak up!

WebRepOverall rating

Ron Paul Breaks It Down: A MUST See Speech Given May 25, 2011!!!

GodLikeProductions.com Video – Audio & Image Hosting | The Last Nail – Floor Speech May 25 2011.