Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Could UN Arms Treaty Infringe On US Constitution?

Could UN Arms Treaty Infringe On US Constitution?

July 3, 2012


Talks begin at UN on global arms trade treaty

The world's nations began a final push Tuesday for the first legally binding global treaty that would regulate the international arms trade and try to prevent the transfer of weapons to armed groups and terrorists.

The 193-member U.N. General Assembly is expected to approve the treaty, which has been in the works since 2006, when the U.S. voted against the resolution that launched the process. The Obama administration later reversed the George W. Bush administration's position and supported an assembly resolution to hold this year's four-week Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon opened the conference after a delay amid reports of disagreement over the role of the Palestinian delegation. Ban said that while the world has made progress on regulating weapons of mass destruction, work on conventional arms has lagged.

"Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence," Ban said. "It is ambitious, but it is achievable."

Led by the United Kingdom, nations have worked to create a treaty that would promote transparency and accountability in the arms trade and prevent international transfers of arms that contribute to serious human rights violations, armed conflict, U.N. sanctions violations, organized crime and terrorist acts. It would not ban the sale of any kinds of guns.

As the escalating conflict in Syria loomed over the conference, questions remained on whether a final treaty would contain strong human rights provisions or cover ammunition as well.

The foreign ministers of the U.K., France, Germany and Sweden wrote in a Monday editorial in the Guardian newspaper that the treaty "should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies. It is also of great importance that the treaty includes strong provisions on human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development."

In April, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, reiterated U.S. support for a treaty, but not one that regulates ammunition.

"We want any treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms," he said. "But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face."

Supporters of a treaty say it will close loopholes that allow arms dealers to evade the strict laws that already exist in countries like the U.S. and transfer guns through weaker states. Only 52 nations have laws regulating arms brokers, and less than half of those impose criminal or monetary penalties for illegal gun sales, according to Oxfam America.

Republicans in Congress have expressed their opposition. Last week, in a letter to President Barack Obama, 130 members wrote that a treaty was "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights." They called for the rejection of any treaty that would prevent the U.S. from supplying arms to allies like Israel and Taiwan.

Read more: Fox News

Sunday, July 1, 2012

USDA Suggests ‘Food Stamp Parties’ to Boost Enrollment

USDA Suggests ‘Food Stamp Parties’ to Boost Enrollment

MUST WATCH VIDEO: FOX BUSINESS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

USDA suggests food stamp parties, games to increase participation


While spending on the food stamp program has increased 100 percent under President Barack Obama, the government continues to push more Americans to enroll in the welfare program.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has embraced entire promotional campaigns designed to encourage eligible Americans to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

A pamphlet currently posted at the USDA website encourages local SNAP offices to throw parties as one way to get potentially eligible seniors to enroll in the program.

“Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle,” the agency advises. “Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a ‘true/false’ quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.”

The Right Mix for Reaching Seniors

The agency’s most recent outreach effort targets California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and the New York metro area with radio ads.

The ads have been running since March and are scheduled to continue through the end of June — at a cost of $2.5 million — $3 million, CNN Money reported Monday.

CNN Money further noted that the USDA began running paid radio ads in 2004, under President George W. Bush, who oversaw a 63 percent increase in average food stamp participation.

In the 1970s, one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today one our of every seven receive the benefit. After the recession, the ratio is expected to hover around one out of every nine, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Despite the high rate of food stamp participation, the USDA has numerous blueprints posted on their website aimed at getting more people to enroll in SNAP. A 2009 State Outreach Plan Guidance explains why the agency believes states should adopt strategies to get more people on the rolls:
Outreach Can Help Increase Participation in SNAP Resulting in Multiple Benefits for Participants, States, and Communities: SNAP is the cornerstone of the nation’s nutrition safety net and an investment in our future. SNAP offers the opportunity for improved nutrition and progress toward economic self-sufficiency for participants who become stronger members of the community. However, too many low income people, especially seniors, working people, and legal immigrants, who are eligible for SNAP do not participate and thus forego assistance that could stretch their food dollars and help improve their nutrition.
According to the USDA, greater food stamp usage can be an economic plus for states and communities.

“Every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in an additional community spending,” the USDA contends in their outreach guidance. “If the national participation rate rose five percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide.”

During debate on the 2012 farm bill earlier this month, Senate Republicans pushed for amendments aimed at reducing the cost and participation in the food stamp program.

The Democratically controlled Senate voted down Republican efforts — denying amendments targeting the swelling rolls that were introduced by Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, and others from Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions — arguing they could reduce access to those in need.

Read more:  The Daily Caller
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This administration is obviously using the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming our sytem in order to destroy it.  (read more about this strategy below):

The Cloward-Piven Strategy: Overwhelm The System In Order To Destroy It

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
 
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation.  Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints.  Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
 
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion.  Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970.  Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.
 
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state.  Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration.  "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals.  When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short.  The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.
 
The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits.  They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls."  Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system.  The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."
 
Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy."  Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help.  

Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike.  Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline.  They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.   

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet.  The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change.   That was the theory.
 
Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement.  In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).  His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article.  His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them.  By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.
 
Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests -- and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones.  

"These methods proved effective.  The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. 

"From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times.  By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."  

As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975.  The entire state of New York nearly went down with it.  The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise.  Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements.  Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.
 
Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven.  But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. 

As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage.  "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech.  "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."
 
Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article.  Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system.  When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982.  

Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett.  Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James. 

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993.  

The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise).  

Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system.  

Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries. 

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.

Cloward-Piven Obama link
Health Reform by Cloward and Piven
Cloward & Piven Connecting The Dots To Obama 
THE CLOWARD & PIVEN STRATEGY BY GLENN BECK (VIDEOS)
CLOWARD PIVEN & OBAMACARE 
Socialism, Obamacare and America 
WHO IS FRANCES FOX PIVEN?  
THE CLOWARD-PIVEN PLAN TO DESTROY GOVERNMENTS
FRANCES FOX PIVEN APPEARS ON IRANS PRESSTV
 

Border Patrol Agents Taught to "Run Away" and "Hide" when Encountering a Shooter

Border Patrol Agents Taught to "Run Away" and "Hide" when Encountering a Shooter

Active Shooter Poster

Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter.

"It's one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.
“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’" union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."
The FEMA-administered computer course, entitled “IS-907- Active Shooter: What You Can Do,” is a 45-minute tutorial that provides guidance to all employees on how to recognize indicators of possible workplace violence and what to do should their office be invaded by gunmen and focuses around three main options; either evacuate, hide out, or in dire circumstances, take action.
Active Shooter Pocket Card by The Department of Homeland Security  Once the course is completed, employees are urged to download additional materials including a summary booklet and pocket-sized card outlining protocol, which was also handed out to employees two months ago.

One DHS employee told FoxNews.com the instruction cards were handed out to employees six weeks ago. At the time, he assumed they were only for civilian employees, not armed law enforcement officers within the department, which oversees the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

"Requiring BP agents to follow the same steps is egregious,” he said.

DHS officials maintain that the Active Shooter course was designed for all employees—civilian and law-enforcement officers-- and no one should rush into a situation where they, or others around them, could get hurt.

“The Department of Homeland Security takes very seriously its responsibility to protect all of its employees from threats that may surface in the workplace,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Michael Friel said in a written statement to FoxNews.com.

“CBP workforce training is designed to prepare all employees, including leaders, managers, supervisors, law enforcement personnel and non-law enforcement personnel, to understand their own roles and the roles of their fellow employees in responding to threats. In an active shooter scenario, employees are taught to take actions that keep them alive.”

But members of Local 2544 say they are obligated to protect the public in such a situation, whether they are on duty or not. Given the instructions, some wonder if they would be disciplined for taking down a gunman in a situation like the Fort Hood shooting or the January, 2011 case in Casa Adobes, in which a deranged gunmen shot 19 people, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Six people were killed. 

“It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm,” the union local's website says.
Active Shooter Booklet by the Department of Homeland Security

Read more: Fox News

The following is the post that Brandon Judd, President of Local 2544 National Border Patrol Council, Tuscon Arizona:
06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide".
If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her.
We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered).
Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.
These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun.
The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well.
The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek.
We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm.
One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to "hide" from some deranged shooter.
Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place.
1. Run away
2. Hide
3. Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter.
Not one mention anywhere of "if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out".
Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage. Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.
It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm.
This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.
Welcome to the New Patrol.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Gaming the Border: a Report from Cochise County, Arizona


WASHINGTON (August 10, 2010) -- Federal officials routinely assure the public that they are gaining control over the Arizona border. Despite these assurances, "Gaming the Border: a Report from Cochise County, Arizona," shows why the border there remains porous, as illegal immigrants avoid the Border Patrol and walk around checkpoints on highways north of the border.


The video opens at the Cochise County ranch of John Ladd, whose family homesteaded the land in 1896. Ladd describes repeated sightings of illegal immigrants from his kitchen window. The report shows video of illegal immigrants running across his property to rendezvous with smugglers driving on nearby Highway 92.


The video also includes multiple scenes recorded by cameras hidden alongside trails through the 14,000-acre ranch. It shows not only dozens of illegal immigrants hiking northward, but also a group of three drug smugglers carrying bundles wrapped in burlap. That is the method smugglers commonly use to move marijuana to points where they rendezvous with vehicles that carry the load northward.


The illegal activity continues despite the fence that marks the border at the southern edge of the Ladd ranch. The report makes the point that the fence isn't much of an obstacle, especially when the Border Patrol is not around.


The video shows that one of the most active smuggling corridors lies just west of the Ladd Ranch, through the Huachuca Mountains. It features excerpts from an interview with an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was part of a group of 11 persons that hiked over the Huachucas in November. 

After descending into the outskirts of Sierra Vista, the group was met by two vehicles that took them a short distance before dropping them off south of a Border Patrol checkpoint. They then walked around the checkpoint, meeting vehicles farther north that took them to Tucson. The illegal immigrant paid $2,800 to be smuggled from the border to Maryland, where he is now working in two fast food restaurants.

Brandon Judd, president of the union that represents non-supervisory Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector, also appears in the video. He talks about the Border Patrol's lack of manpower to control the trails through the Huachucas and the flanks of the highway checkpoints.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hopefully people will wake up and see that this administration is hell-bent on tying the hands of anyone in law enforcement and the military.  They are NOT a friend of the countless brave women and men that put their lives on the line to protect us, both here and in foreign countries.  
I hope they will be seen for the cowards they are and our brave military, border patrol agents and law enforcement officers show up to vote them out of office in 2012.  

Thank you, Mr. Judd, for bringing this egregious policy by the Department of Homeland Un-Security to our attention.

~Michele