Category Archives: UN

Update VI: Blow Them Out Of The Seas! (& No Somali Nation-Building)

Africa, Bush, Crime, Europe, Founding Fathers, Iran, Justice, Military, Neoconservatism, Terrorism, The West, Trade, UN

Pirates! That in itself is a romantic euphemism. These are terrorists on the high seas. They’ve been operating a criminal enterprise that targets innocents with impunity–and with great success. Yet the West does nothing. China, a country that seems to act in its national interests more so than do we, is, by The Washington Times’ account, “deploying vessels to secure their shipping since they can no longer rely on other powers to keep trade flowing unmolested.”

To recap: North Korea has committed no real aggression against the US with its measly missile. The Iranians shoot their mouths off. Both countries know that if they deign to aggress against the US, why, we’ll obliterate them. Yet, on-and-on the debate goes as to whether America should kill the innocent people of these lands. Conversely, when confronted with evil in action—plunderers thwarting the lifeblood that is trade—nothing much is done.

Or murmurs of negotiations ensue.

“Pirates” operate near “ the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Guinea and around the Strait of Malacca near Singapore,” and threaten peaceful commerce with raids on “cargo vessels, tankers, fishing vessels, cruise liners, yachts and the occasional tugboat.”

The first seizure of a U.S. flagged vessel by pirates in recent memory was thwarted yesterday as the crew retook the vessel. The taking and retaking of the Maersk Alabama has grabbed headlines, but it was one of six ships attacked in that area since last weekend. The only reason this ship was saved is that the American crew fought back.

This is an excellent opportunity for private companies to step in to fill the protection gap. But, knowing the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” “any vessels but clearly identified naval or other national forces,” are prohibited from “seizing pirate vessels.” As are “the rules of self-defense at sea somewhat murky.”

If ever there was a time to thumb the proverbial nose at the nosy UN, this is it. I say, “as President Washington said in 1786, lamenting payments being made to the Barbary Pirates, … ‘crush them into nonexistence.'”

Or, blow them out of the seas!

Update I: From the Wall Street Journal: “In the waning days of the Bush administration, the National Security Council issued a detailed yet little-noticed plan for combating piracy off the coast of Somalia.”

Commensurate with Bush’s emphasis on using force, mostly, when it was inappropriate to use it, the previous administration “was nearly silent … on what to do if a ship is taken by pirates and crew members are held captive. And what little guidance it provided was vague. U.S. naval forces were given authority to ‘terminate the act of piracy and any included hostage situation.’ Just how they were to do that was left unsaid.”

I hope he surprises me, but I doubt Barry will deviate from the perplexing policy of aggression against non-aggressors, and non-aggression against aggressors.

Update II (April 10): OBAMA AWOL The silence of this White House, so far, is deafening; the inaction of the best navy seals in the world perplexing. The brave captain of the Maersk Alabama attempted to escape. Stealthy seals were nowhere in sight to help him get away and annihilate his pursuers. He is recaptured.

Knowing that the US media would be covering for Obama, I went straight for the international coverage. The Times Online plasters an appropriate headline on its website: “US Navy misses chance to rescue American captain held hostage by pirates“:

Captain Richard Phillips fled through a back door in the covered lifeboat about midnight on Thursday local time and began swimming away, US officials said.

At least one pirate jumped in after him and brought him back aboard the boat, which is drifting without fuel, before the nearby US destroyer, USS Bainbridge, could intervene. The incident was captured on video by a US drone overhead. “He didn’t get very far,” one official said. …

The Bainbridge, backed by drones and surveillance aircraft, was standing guard a few hundred yards from the lifeboat, which had run out of fuel. The frigate USS Halyburton and the assault ship USS Boxer, armed with about two dozen helicopters and attack planes, sailed to the scene yesterday.

“[a] former US ambassador in Ethiopia and an expert on the Horn of Africa, advocated a tougher policy against pirates, including sinking their ‘mother ships.'”

This is a disgrace! Worse: it’s a disregard for American life.

While Obamby vacillates, President Sarkozy gave French commandos the order to storm a yacht captured by “pirates,” off the coast of Somalia. There is one casualty, but two families are freed. This operation is “the seventh in a year by French forces,” all ordered by the French president.

Hardly a softy is Sarkozy.

According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, “Over the last few days the spike in new pirate attacks has been dramatic. Ten ships, including the MV Hansa Stavager, a German freighter, have been taken. A total of 20 ships remain in the hands of pirates.”

Update III (April 11): SOMALI SHAMANS AND FOOLISH FBI TO THE RESCUE. The US navy’s lackluster efforts to free Capt. Richard Phillips ran aground today… again. Yesterday, a US drone captured, on video, Capt. Phillips making an attempted escape. Had the “vigilant” marines been glued to their monitors, they might have blown the pirates’ dingy out of the sea as soon as the Capt. jumped the craft.

Today, U.S. sailors tried to reach the lifeboat, but the “pirates” did what “pirates” are wont to do: fired on them. The US Navy responded by doing what the Navy, apparently, does when aggressed against: retreat: “The gunfire forced the sailors, who did not return fire, back to the guided missile destroyer USS Bainbridge,” reports CNN.

As if this faux pa were not enough, we learn that the this act of terror on the high seas will be bureaucratized:

“The U.S. Navy — which is in charge of the situation” [– and cannot handle it] has “requested help from the FBI to resolve the standoff.”

The FBI is launching a criminal investigation into the hijacking and hostage-taking, two law enforcement officials told CNN. The probe will be led by the FBI’s New York field office, which has responsibility for looking into cases involving U.S. citizens in the African region. Agents from the office were scheduled to leave for Africa sometime this weekend, the officials said.

Yes, I can think of nothing more appropriate in resolving a stand-off with criminals than to launch an “investigation.” Perhaps the FBI can call in their Behavioral “Sciences” pseudo-scientists, who can then draw up a profile of an African pirate. (Daddy had too many wives and didn’t spend quality time with pygmy pirate.)

Wait a sec, I know of an even better course of action for our bureaucrats. The Christian Science Monitor tells that “relatives of the four Somali hijackers, along with a group of Somali elders, are traveling to the coastal area nearby determined to ‘solve the problem peacefully … without any guns or ransom.'”

Now, if you believe that these are relatives of the hijackers rather than some wily old men from the tribe, who want to get their faces on CNN, and con stupid westerners, then, you must have believed, together with Fox and Friends, that WMD were probably moved to Syria, and al-Qaeda and the Ba’athists were an item.

I hope the savvy Somalis show the foolish FBI how to throw some bones and conjure the ancestral spirits. That ought to help free Capt. Phillips.

Update IV (April 12): To some degree, I agree with “Gunjam’s” comment hereunder. This is a top-brass issue. Although, the military is not exactly what it used to be any longer. Desperate people are being signed up these days. Affirmative action abounds in the military too. Read “OSAMA’S SNICKERING AT OUR MILITARY.” Enough of this Fox-News-type adulation of men just because they wear a uniform. This mission is a complete failure so far. Most of it may come from the top, but, it would seem, quite a bit of the blame rests on the men themselves. With the electronics the military has, with a drone straining on the poor captain as he jumped ship—not to have been there to fish him out is preposterous.

I am well aware that there are many forums where military groupies congregate.

(Update V): The details are still sketchy, but Capt. Phillips is free at last. What wonderful news! It is still unclear whether this exceptional mariner attempted, first, to escape again, and the navy picked him up as they picked-off the pirates. Or whether the order was finally given, and naval forces went in and did what needed to be done.

Either way; this is such a good day; such a fine conclusion to an unnecessarily protracted stand-off. The nightmare of a hostage unrescued, documented repeatedly during the unlawful, immoral invasion of Iraq in columns such as “AFTER THEIR HEADS ROLL, AMERICA’S DEAD REMAIN FACELESS,” has been averted.

Reuters: “Joseph Murphy, whose son, Shane, was Phillips’s second in command and took over the Alabama after pirates left with Phillips, said in a statement read by CNN, ‘Our prayers have been answered on this Easter Sunday.'”

Update VI: NO TO NATION BUILDING. Here’s what I’ve gleaned from all the disjointed reports: On Friday (only) the president had issued a standing order sanctioning force if the hostage’s life was in danger. Since the life of the captured master of the Maersk Alabama had always been in danger—is that not the definition of a hostage situation?—this would indicate only that Obama’s preferred option was to end this act of thuggery peacefully.

This, I might add, is in contrast to the French government’s actions.

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said “the White House had given military operators ‘very clear guidance and authority’ if Phillips’ life was in danger.”

“The on-scene commander took it as the captain was in imminent danger and then made that decision (to shoot), and he had the authorities to make that decision, and he had seconds to make that decision,” he said.

Clearly Obama’s order gave the U.S.S. Bainbridge commander all the latitude he needed. All the while, negotiations had been ongoing, with the outcome that the pirate dingy was now fastened to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, was being towed by it, and was comfortably within sights. Supplies were being provided to the occupants.

A young pirate who’d been stabbed by the brave, unarmed sailors of the Maersk Alabama, was on board the Bainbridge, ostensibly “negotiating.” The mariners of the Maersk, incidentally, had never lost control of their vessel. If these stellar members of the American merchant marine had managed to hold off—and hurt—the pirates without any guns, just image what they’d have pulled off had they been armed!

While the navy had failed to rescue Phillips after he had heroically escaped the lifeboat the first time around, it is not exactly clear whether he had jumped this time too. What is apparent is that, “Capt. Phillips was pulled out of sea and transported to the Bainbridge.”

Sometime on Saturday, I believe, Navy Seals had been parachuted onto a vessel out of the pirates’ earshot. They made their way to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, and positioned themselves. “On the marksmanship of the snipers,” a very impressive Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said succinctly: “We pay a lot for their training and we got a good return on our investment.”

I’d say!

The Somali elders were disappointed that their “help” would no longer be needed, but judging from the prattle coming from neocon nation-builders on the left and right—these corrupt old coots may find themselves on call soon.

From CNN especially comes the notion that piracy is really poverty and powerlessness in disguise. (Donna Lemon, CNN’s cherubic, remarkably bad newsman-cum-woman, forgot to blame the “pale, patriarchal, penis people.”) Nevertheless, the consensus among the neocons, left and right, is that what Somalis really need is American boots on the ground to show them how democracy nullifies the need for piracy (NOT). And aid, lots of it.

Here we go again.

Update VI: Blow Them Out Of The Seas! (& No Somali Nation-Building)

Africa, Bush, Crime, Europe, Founding Fathers, Iran, Justice, Military, Neoconservatism, Terrorism, The West, Trade, UN

Pirates! That in itself is a romantic euphemism. These are terrorists on the high seas. They’ve been operating a criminal enterprise that targets innocents with impunity–and with great success. Yet the West does nothing. China, a country that seems to act in its national interests more so than do we, is, by The Washington Times’ account, “deploying vessels to secure their shipping since they can no longer rely on other powers to keep trade flowing unmolested.”

To recap: North Korea has committed no real aggression against the US with its measly missile. The Iranians shoot their mouths off. Both countries know that if they deign to aggress against the US, why, we’ll obliterate them. Yet, on-and-on the debate goes as to whether America should kill the innocent people of these lands. Conversely, when confronted with evil in action—plunderers thwarting the lifeblood that is trade—nothing much is done.

Or murmurs of negotiations ensue.

“Pirates” operate near “ the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Guinea and around the Strait of Malacca near Singapore,” and threaten peaceful commerce with raids on “cargo vessels, tankers, fishing vessels, cruise liners, yachts and the occasional tugboat.”

The first seizure of a U.S. flagged vessel by pirates in recent memory was thwarted yesterday as the crew retook the vessel. The taking and retaking of the Maersk Alabama has grabbed headlines, but it was one of six ships attacked in that area since last weekend. The only reason this ship was saved is that the American crew fought back.

This is an excellent opportunity for private companies to step in to fill the protection gap. But, knowing the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” “any vessels but clearly identified naval or other national forces,” are prohibited from “seizing pirate vessels.” As are “the rules of self-defense at sea somewhat murky.”

If ever there was a time to thumb the proverbial nose at the nosy UN, this is it. I say, “as President Washington said in 1786, lamenting payments being made to the Barbary Pirates, … ‘crush them into nonexistence.'”

Or, blow them out of the seas!

Update I: From the Wall Street Journal: “In the waning days of the Bush administration, the National Security Council issued a detailed yet little-noticed plan for combating piracy off the coast of Somalia.”

Commensurate with Bush’s emphasis on using force, mostly, when it was inappropriate to use it, the previous administration “was nearly silent … on what to do if a ship is taken by pirates and crew members are held captive. And what little guidance it provided was vague. U.S. naval forces were given authority to ‘terminate the act of piracy and any included hostage situation.’ Just how they were to do that was left unsaid.”

I hope he surprises me, but I doubt Barry will deviate from the perplexing policy of aggression against non-aggressors, and non-aggression against aggressors.

Update II (April 10): OBAMA AWOL The silence of this White House, so far, is deafening; the inaction of the best navy seals in the world perplexing. The brave captain of the Maersk Alabama attempted to escape. Stealthy seals were nowhere in sight to help him get away and annihilate his pursuers. He is recaptured.

Knowing that the US media would be covering for Obama, I went straight for the international coverage. The Times Online plasters an appropriate headline on its website: “US Navy misses chance to rescue American captain held hostage by pirates“:

Captain Richard Phillips fled through a back door in the covered lifeboat about midnight on Thursday local time and began swimming away, US officials said.

At least one pirate jumped in after him and brought him back aboard the boat, which is drifting without fuel, before the nearby US destroyer, USS Bainbridge, could intervene. The incident was captured on video by a US drone overhead. “He didn’t get very far,” one official said. …

The Bainbridge, backed by drones and surveillance aircraft, was standing guard a few hundred yards from the lifeboat, which had run out of fuel. The frigate USS Halyburton and the assault ship USS Boxer, armed with about two dozen helicopters and attack planes, sailed to the scene yesterday.

“[a] former US ambassador in Ethiopia and an expert on the Horn of Africa, advocated a tougher policy against pirates, including sinking their ‘mother ships.'”

This is a disgrace! Worse: it’s a disregard for American life.

While Obamby vacillates, President Sarkozy gave French commandos the order to storm a yacht captured by “pirates,” off the coast of Somalia. There is one casualty, but two families are freed. This operation is “the seventh in a year by French forces,” all ordered by the French president.

Hardly a softy is Sarkozy.

According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, “Over the last few days the spike in new pirate attacks has been dramatic. Ten ships, including the MV Hansa Stavager, a German freighter, have been taken. A total of 20 ships remain in the hands of pirates.”

Update III (April 11): SOMALI SHAMANS AND FOOLISH FBI TO THE RESCUE. The US navy’s lackluster efforts to free Capt. Richard Phillips ran aground today… again. Yesterday, a US drone captured, on video, Capt. Phillips making an attempted escape. Had the “vigilant” marines been glued to their monitors, they might have blown the pirates’ dingy out of the sea as soon as the Capt. jumped the craft.

Today, U.S. sailors tried to reach the lifeboat, but the “pirates” did what “pirates” are wont to do: fired on them. The US Navy responded by doing what the Navy, apparently, does when aggressed against: retreat: “The gunfire forced the sailors, who did not return fire, back to the guided missile destroyer USS Bainbridge,” reports CNN.

As if this faux pa were not enough, we learn that the this act of terror on the high seas will be bureaucratized:

“The U.S. Navy — which is in charge of the situation” [– and cannot handle it] has “requested help from the FBI to resolve the standoff.”

The FBI is launching a criminal investigation into the hijacking and hostage-taking, two law enforcement officials told CNN. The probe will be led by the FBI’s New York field office, which has responsibility for looking into cases involving U.S. citizens in the African region. Agents from the office were scheduled to leave for Africa sometime this weekend, the officials said.

Yes, I can think of nothing more appropriate in resolving a stand-off with criminals than to launch an “investigation.” Perhaps the FBI can call in their Behavioral “Sciences” pseudo-scientists, who can then draw up a profile of an African pirate. (Daddy had too many wives and didn’t spend quality time with pygmy pirate.)

Wait a sec, I know of an even better course of action for our bureaucrats. The Christian Science Monitor tells that “relatives of the four Somali hijackers, along with a group of Somali elders, are traveling to the coastal area nearby determined to ‘solve the problem peacefully … without any guns or ransom.'”

Now, if you believe that these are relatives of the hijackers rather than some wily old men from the tribe, who want to get their faces on CNN, and con stupid westerners, then, you must have believed, together with Fox and Friends, that WMD were probably moved to Syria, and al-Qaeda and the Ba’athists were an item.

I hope the savvy Somalis show the foolish FBI how to throw some bones and conjure the ancestral spirits. That ought to help free Capt. Phillips.

Update IV (April 12): To some degree, I agree with “Gunjam’s” comment hereunder. This is a top-brass issue. Although, the military is not exactly what it used to be any longer. Desperate people are being signed up these days. Affirmative action abounds in the military too. Read “OSAMA’S SNICKERING AT OUR MILITARY.” Enough of this Fox-News-type adulation of men just because they wear a uniform. This mission is a complete failure so far. Most of it may come from the top, but, it would seem, quite a bit of the blame rests on the men themselves. With the electronics the military has, with a drone straining on the poor captain as he jumped ship—not to have been there to fish him out is preposterous.

I am well aware that there are many forums where military groupies congregate.

(Update V): The details are still sketchy, but Capt. Phillips is free at last. What wonderful news! It is still unclear whether this exceptional mariner attempted, first, to escape again, and the navy picked him up as they picked-off the pirates. Or whether the order was finally given, and naval forces went in and did what needed to be done.

Either way; this is such a good day; such a fine conclusion to an unnecessarily protracted stand-off. The nightmare of a hostage unrescued, documented repeatedly during the unlawful, immoral invasion of Iraq in columns such as “AFTER THEIR HEADS ROLL, AMERICA’S DEAD REMAIN FACELESS,” has been averted.

Reuters: “Joseph Murphy, whose son, Shane, was Phillips’s second in command and took over the Alabama after pirates left with Phillips, said in a statement read by CNN, ‘Our prayers have been answered on this Easter Sunday.'”

Update VI: NO TO NATION BUILDING. Here’s what I’ve gleaned from all the disjointed reports: On Friday (only) the president had issued a standing order sanctioning force if the hostage’s life was in danger. Since the life of the captured master of the Maersk Alabama had always been in danger—is that not the definition of a hostage situation?—this would indicate only that Obama’s preferred option was to end this act of thuggery peacefully.

This, I might add, is in contrast to the French government’s actions.

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said “the White House had given military operators ‘very clear guidance and authority’ if Phillips’ life was in danger.”

“The on-scene commander took it as the captain was in imminent danger and then made that decision (to shoot), and he had the authorities to make that decision, and he had seconds to make that decision,” he said.

Clearly Obama’s order gave the U.S.S. Bainbridge commander all the latitude he needed. All the while, negotiations had been ongoing, with the outcome that the pirate dingy was now fastened to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, was being towed by it, and was comfortably within sights. Supplies were being provided to the occupants.

A young pirate who’d been stabbed by the brave, unarmed sailors of the Maersk Alabama, was on board the Bainbridge, ostensibly “negotiating.” The mariners of the Maersk, incidentally, had never lost control of their vessel. If these stellar members of the American merchant marine had managed to hold off—and hurt—the pirates without any guns, just image what they’d have pulled off had they been armed!

While the navy had failed to rescue Phillips after he had heroically escaped the lifeboat the first time around, it is not exactly clear whether he had jumped this time too. What is apparent is that, “Capt. Phillips was pulled out of sea and transported to the Bainbridge.”

Sometime on Saturday, I believe, Navy Seals had been parachuted onto a vessel out of the pirates’ earshot. They made their way to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, and positioned themselves. “On the marksmanship of the snipers,” a very impressive Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said succinctly: “We pay a lot for their training and we got a good return on our investment.”

I’d say!

The Somali elders were disappointed that their “help” would no longer be needed, but judging from the prattle coming from neocon nation-builders on the left and right—these corrupt old coots may find themselves on call soon.

From CNN especially comes the notion that piracy is really poverty and powerlessness in disguise. (Donna Lemon, CNN’s cherubic, remarkably bad newsman-cum-woman, forgot to blame the “pale, patriarchal, penis people.”) Nevertheless, the consensus among the neocons, left and right, is that what Somalis really need is American boots on the ground to show them how democracy nullifies the need for piracy (NOT). And aid, lots of it.

Here we go again.

Updated: Wayne LaPierre On Sovereignty & The Second Amendment

Barack Obama, Constitution, Individual Rights, Natural Law, UN

WRITES WAYNE LAPIERRE, NRA EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT:

Gun rights advocates considering skipping this November’s presidential election should keep two things in mind–the Supreme Court and the United Nations. …

Recently, I’ve encountered some friends who are disillusioned over the political scene. As one recently put it, “The country would be better off with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House, because after four years, the American people would have their fill of ‘progressives’ and demand a true political revolution.”

What I have said to them one-on-one must also be said to any of our number who might have that same “sit-this-one-out” mentality. Two things I mentioned to the cynics changed their minds–the Supreme Court and the United Nations.

Consider this: In November, we will not just be electing a president for four years. In essence, we will be electing a U.S. Supreme Court majority for a lifetime. And we will be electing scores of lower court judges to lifetime posts.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has embraced every form of gun control you can think of–from registration, to licensing, to gun bans–actually put it better than I can. She told a newspaper editorial board in Iowa:

“I think you can make it clear that elections have political consequences, and among them are who gets to pick our judges . . . who has power and how they get to exercise that power . . .”

That power, Clinton understands, extends to the entire federal government, and she understands how that power can be used to pack the court with those unfavorable to the Second Amendment.

This is the fundamental fact that the “sit out this election” folks are forgetting. Whatever issue is driving our disheartened friends to believe that “worse will be better in the long run,” we must remind them that the long run is exactly why the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court trumps everything else.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. A relatively youthful anti-Second Amendment justice or two could hold supremacy over our Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the next 30 to 40 years.
In the next few years, it is likely that two, maybe three, Supreme Court vacancies will occur. The one appointing replacements will be critical to everything we hold dear–and that holds true for all of our friends who are dedicated to preserving freedom involving other important issues.

Right now, we are seeing just how critical a change in the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court can be–especially concerning the Second Amendment. Nothing accomplished during George W. Bush’s presidency has been more important than his appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

In the next few years, it is likely that two, maybe three, Supreme Court vacancies will occur. The one appointing replacements will be critical to everything we hold dear–and that holds true for all of our friends who are dedicated to preserving freedom in other areas.

Here is what Sen. Barack Obama sees as the role of the Supreme Court; he recently declared during one of his town hall meetings:

“What I really believe is that the Supreme Court has to be first and foremost thinking about and looking out for those who are vulnerable. People who are minorities, people who have historically been discriminated against. People who are poor. People who have been cheated. People who are being taken advantage of. People who have unpopular opinions. People who are outsiders.”

In other words, it’s about social engineering, not interpreting the law.

As for Clinton, her vision is also very clear–and just as frightening:

“I’m going to be looking for people,” Clinton said, “who respect that the Constitution is an organic, growing, evolving set of principles that have stood the test of time, and we can’t just be looking at it as though it is frozen at some point in the late 18th century . . .”

To my mind, that statement from Clinton defines exactly why we don’t need any more activist social engineers creating law from the bench.

In truth, the only major presidential candidate talking about strict adherence to the Constitution by the courts is Sen. John McCain. In May, he laid out his vision of America’s court system to a Wake Forest University audience:

“In federal and state courts, and in the practice of law across our nation, there are still men and women who understand very well the proper role of our judiciary, and I intend to find them and promote them,” McCain said. “My nominees will understand that there are very clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.”

Counter that with Clinton’s view of what is at stake for her party’s progressive philosophy come November. Again, remember Hillary’s words: “I think you can make it clear that elections have political consequences, and among them are who gets to pick our judges . . .”

She’s right.

With a Senate controlled by party members who agree with her, Clinton knows what is up for grabs–nothing less than the entire federal court system, with scores of vacancies created by a politicized confirmation process designed to kill the nomination of any “strict constructionist.”

To see how important this issue truly is, let’s look at the damage just one U.S. district court judge can do. Many of the most outrageous abuses of the federal judicial process have been before Brooklyn federal judge Jack B. Weinstein. Anti-gun to the core, Weinstein has even gone so far as to ban the use of the words “Second Amendment” and “National Rifle Association” during court proceedings.

Many of these cases are based on an abusive, Orwellian legal claim that the federally licensed firearm industry is somehow responsible for the violent acts of armed criminals in New York City. Anti-gun groups have tailored their cases and abused court procedures to get into Judge Weinstein’s courtroom.

Judge Weinstein has provided endless opportunity for this serial abuse of the judicial process with punitive, crackpot legal action piled upon legal action. And in case after case, his rulings have been reversed.

But what if, in the future, appeals court judges appointed by Obama or Clinton were to uphold one of Weinstein’s wacky decisions? Further, suppose that decision is supported by a Supreme Court majority appointed by Obama or Clinton.

Such a scenario could spell the end of lawful commerce in firearms in America, and it could mean the end of federalism as we know it.

The latest case before Judge Weinstein involves New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s vigilante action to control the lives of innocent firearm dealers in every state in the nation from his Manhattan office. Billionaire Bloomberg wants to be a self-appointed dictator ruling over gun owners’ lives, no matter where they live. And Weinstein has granted him that authority.

“The basic premise … that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world, ought to be rejected out of hand.”

–Justice Antonin Scalia

So if Obama or Clinton were elected, and endowed with the ability to appoint even more activist judges in the Weinstein mold, everything we believe in, and everything we practice under the Second Amendment, could be destroyed.

As consumers, we are already paying for such judicial travesties–Judge Weinstein’s inquisitions have already cost the firearm industry over $100 million in legal fees. Several companies have even gone belly-up because of the legal costs.

Imagine an Obama or Clinton administration–supported by a rubber-stamp progressive U.S. Senate–with 10 more, 20 more, even 50 more judges like Weinstein. For that reason alone, gun owners and others who believe in the Constitution cannot afford to sit out this election.

In McCain’s Wake Forest speech, among the activist directions of the Supreme Court that he attacked was the notion–expressed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Steven G. Breyer–that international law takes precedence over American law, or even the Constitution.

In a 2005 death penalty case, for example, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority:

“It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion . . . The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”

In his scathing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia countered:

“‘Acknowledgment’ of foreign approval has no place in the legal opinion of this Court . . . the basic premise . . . that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world, ought to be rejected out of hand.”

Yet conforming to the laws of the world–for example, laws to disarm all civilians–is the very goal of the likes of globalist gun-banner George Soros and his international political hand-maiden Rebecca Peters. In their view, world opinion demands total civil disarmament on a global scale, including free citizens of the United States of America. Peters heads the powerful International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which is bankrolled by billionaire Soros and deep-pocketed governments that have forcefully disarmed their own citizens.

When Peters and I debated before a crowd at Kings College London in 2004, she stated:

“I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world . . . this is the irony that the gun lobby . . . should be obstructing a global process . . .”

This global process Peters champions brings me to another huge stake that American firearm owners have in this election, yet might not have carefully considered: the United Nations.

And in the case of an Obama or Clinton administration, U.N. supremacy over American sovereignty would be a clear danger.

During President Bush’s tenure, no better service to the cause of American freedom has been rendered than that of United States Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, who was honored as banquet speaker at the 2007 nra Annual Meetings & Exhibits in St. Louis. From the first months of the Bush administration, as undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, Bolton stunned the gun-ban world, telling the U.N. international gun control conference in July 2001:

“The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Bolton consistently held that line against an unrelenting effort by the U.N. to create a treaty that would jeopardize our national sovereignty and trump the Second Amendment.

You can be certain, however, that under an Obama or Clinton administration, there will be no John Bolton in the halls of the United Nations to protect the interests of American sovereignty and our rights under the Constitution. Consequently, upcoming U.N. disarmament efforts could prove far more devastating to our way of life than anything we’ve so far witnessed.

Stop and consider a gun hater representing the United States in the U.N. gun-ban process, and you can see just how real this threat could be.

An Obama or Clinton administration, appointing anti-gun Supreme Court justices along with U.N. representatives friendly to Soros’ and Peters’ gun-ban plans, would create a well-oiled anti-gun machine–both within and outside the country–bent on destroying the Second Amendment.

Once in place, that machine could pursue its desired endgame–a total U.S. gun ban–unfettered by those gun owners who chose to “sit this one out.”

We simply can’t let that happen.

***

Update: Support the NRA’s Castle-Doctrine initiatives.

Updated: Wayne LaPierre On Sovereignty & The Second Amendment

Barack Obama, Constitution, Individual Rights, Natural Law, UN

WRITES WAYNE LAPIERRE, NRA EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT:

Gun rights advocates considering skipping this November’s presidential election should keep two things in mind–the Supreme Court and the United Nations. …

Recently, I’ve encountered some friends who are disillusioned over the political scene. As one recently put it, “The country would be better off with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House, because after four years, the American people would have their fill of ‘progressives’ and demand a true political revolution.”

What I have said to them one-on-one must also be said to any of our number who might have that same “sit-this-one-out” mentality. Two things I mentioned to the cynics changed their minds–the Supreme Court and the United Nations.

Consider this: In November, we will not just be electing a president for four years. In essence, we will be electing a U.S. Supreme Court majority for a lifetime. And we will be electing scores of lower court judges to lifetime posts.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has embraced every form of gun control you can think of–from registration, to licensing, to gun bans–actually put it better than I can. She told a newspaper editorial board in Iowa:

“I think you can make it clear that elections have political consequences, and among them are who gets to pick our judges . . . who has power and how they get to exercise that power . . .”

That power, Clinton understands, extends to the entire federal government, and she understands how that power can be used to pack the court with those unfavorable to the Second Amendment.

This is the fundamental fact that the “sit out this election” folks are forgetting. Whatever issue is driving our disheartened friends to believe that “worse will be better in the long run,” we must remind them that the long run is exactly why the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court trumps everything else.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. A relatively youthful anti-Second Amendment justice or two could hold supremacy over our Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the next 30 to 40 years.
In the next few years, it is likely that two, maybe three, Supreme Court vacancies will occur. The one appointing replacements will be critical to everything we hold dear–and that holds true for all of our friends who are dedicated to preserving freedom involving other important issues.

Right now, we are seeing just how critical a change in the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court can be–especially concerning the Second Amendment. Nothing accomplished during George W. Bush’s presidency has been more important than his appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

In the next few years, it is likely that two, maybe three, Supreme Court vacancies will occur. The one appointing replacements will be critical to everything we hold dear–and that holds true for all of our friends who are dedicated to preserving freedom in other areas.

Here is what Sen. Barack Obama sees as the role of the Supreme Court; he recently declared during one of his town hall meetings:

“What I really believe is that the Supreme Court has to be first and foremost thinking about and looking out for those who are vulnerable. People who are minorities, people who have historically been discriminated against. People who are poor. People who have been cheated. People who are being taken advantage of. People who have unpopular opinions. People who are outsiders.”

In other words, it’s about social engineering, not interpreting the law.

As for Clinton, her vision is also very clear–and just as frightening:

“I’m going to be looking for people,” Clinton said, “who respect that the Constitution is an organic, growing, evolving set of principles that have stood the test of time, and we can’t just be looking at it as though it is frozen at some point in the late 18th century . . .”

To my mind, that statement from Clinton defines exactly why we don’t need any more activist social engineers creating law from the bench.

In truth, the only major presidential candidate talking about strict adherence to the Constitution by the courts is Sen. John McCain. In May, he laid out his vision of America’s court system to a Wake Forest University audience:

“In federal and state courts, and in the practice of law across our nation, there are still men and women who understand very well the proper role of our judiciary, and I intend to find them and promote them,” McCain said. “My nominees will understand that there are very clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.”

Counter that with Clinton’s view of what is at stake for her party’s progressive philosophy come November. Again, remember Hillary’s words: “I think you can make it clear that elections have political consequences, and among them are who gets to pick our judges . . .”

She’s right.

With a Senate controlled by party members who agree with her, Clinton knows what is up for grabs–nothing less than the entire federal court system, with scores of vacancies created by a politicized confirmation process designed to kill the nomination of any “strict constructionist.”

To see how important this issue truly is, let’s look at the damage just one U.S. district court judge can do. Many of the most outrageous abuses of the federal judicial process have been before Brooklyn federal judge Jack B. Weinstein. Anti-gun to the core, Weinstein has even gone so far as to ban the use of the words “Second Amendment” and “National Rifle Association” during court proceedings.

Many of these cases are based on an abusive, Orwellian legal claim that the federally licensed firearm industry is somehow responsible for the violent acts of armed criminals in New York City. Anti-gun groups have tailored their cases and abused court procedures to get into Judge Weinstein’s courtroom.

Judge Weinstein has provided endless opportunity for this serial abuse of the judicial process with punitive, crackpot legal action piled upon legal action. And in case after case, his rulings have been reversed.

But what if, in the future, appeals court judges appointed by Obama or Clinton were to uphold one of Weinstein’s wacky decisions? Further, suppose that decision is supported by a Supreme Court majority appointed by Obama or Clinton.

Such a scenario could spell the end of lawful commerce in firearms in America, and it could mean the end of federalism as we know it.

The latest case before Judge Weinstein involves New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s vigilante action to control the lives of innocent firearm dealers in every state in the nation from his Manhattan office. Billionaire Bloomberg wants to be a self-appointed dictator ruling over gun owners’ lives, no matter where they live. And Weinstein has granted him that authority.

“The basic premise … that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world, ought to be rejected out of hand.”

–Justice Antonin Scalia

So if Obama or Clinton were elected, and endowed with the ability to appoint even more activist judges in the Weinstein mold, everything we believe in, and everything we practice under the Second Amendment, could be destroyed.

As consumers, we are already paying for such judicial travesties–Judge Weinstein’s inquisitions have already cost the firearm industry over $100 million in legal fees. Several companies have even gone belly-up because of the legal costs.

Imagine an Obama or Clinton administration–supported by a rubber-stamp progressive U.S. Senate–with 10 more, 20 more, even 50 more judges like Weinstein. For that reason alone, gun owners and others who believe in the Constitution cannot afford to sit out this election.

In McCain’s Wake Forest speech, among the activist directions of the Supreme Court that he attacked was the notion–expressed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Steven G. Breyer–that international law takes precedence over American law, or even the Constitution.

In a 2005 death penalty case, for example, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority:

“It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion . . . The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”

In his scathing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia countered:

“‘Acknowledgment’ of foreign approval has no place in the legal opinion of this Court . . . the basic premise . . . that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world, ought to be rejected out of hand.”

Yet conforming to the laws of the world–for example, laws to disarm all civilians–is the very goal of the likes of globalist gun-banner George Soros and his international political hand-maiden Rebecca Peters. In their view, world opinion demands total civil disarmament on a global scale, including free citizens of the United States of America. Peters heads the powerful International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which is bankrolled by billionaire Soros and deep-pocketed governments that have forcefully disarmed their own citizens.

When Peters and I debated before a crowd at Kings College London in 2004, she stated:

“I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world . . . this is the irony that the gun lobby . . . should be obstructing a global process . . .”

This global process Peters champions brings me to another huge stake that American firearm owners have in this election, yet might not have carefully considered: the United Nations.

And in the case of an Obama or Clinton administration, U.N. supremacy over American sovereignty would be a clear danger.

During President Bush’s tenure, no better service to the cause of American freedom has been rendered than that of United States Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, who was honored as banquet speaker at the 2007 nra Annual Meetings & Exhibits in St. Louis. From the first months of the Bush administration, as undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, Bolton stunned the gun-ban world, telling the U.N. international gun control conference in July 2001:

“The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Bolton consistently held that line against an unrelenting effort by the U.N. to create a treaty that would jeopardize our national sovereignty and trump the Second Amendment.

You can be certain, however, that under an Obama or Clinton administration, there will be no John Bolton in the halls of the United Nations to protect the interests of American sovereignty and our rights under the Constitution. Consequently, upcoming U.N. disarmament efforts could prove far more devastating to our way of life than anything we’ve so far witnessed.

Stop and consider a gun hater representing the United States in the U.N. gun-ban process, and you can see just how real this threat could be.

An Obama or Clinton administration, appointing anti-gun Supreme Court justices along with U.N. representatives friendly to Soros’ and Peters’ gun-ban plans, would create a well-oiled anti-gun machine–both within and outside the country–bent on destroying the Second Amendment.

Once in place, that machine could pursue its desired endgame–a total U.S. gun ban–unfettered by those gun owners who chose to “sit this one out.”

We simply can’t let that happen.

***

Update: Support the NRA’s Castle-Doctrine initiatives.