Category Archives: By The Book

Will the Senate threaten the 2nd Amendment?

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty goes into effect on December 24th. Through that date, Coach is Right will provide background and current information concerning the dangers this treaty poses to the American people and their freedom.

President Obama has been re-elected since this piece was written and Republicans secured a massive, midterm victory in 2014. The midterm results should guarantee an incoming Senate that would  not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty. But conservative voters were certainly betrayed by the vote of the Republican House on the Omnibus Spending Bill a few days ago.

First published on July 13, 2012

by Doug Book,  staff writer

As New York City plays host to a conference which will shape the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) into final form, most 2nd Amendment supporters are concerned that stealth language or overly broad applications woven into the document will serve to separate Americans from their right to keep and bear arms. After all, why else would preliminary versions of the Treaty be so difficult to obtain and U.N., pre-conference position statements remain consistently absent from the internet?  

Barack Hussein Obama leads the most anti-gun rights Administration in the nation’s history. Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and recently appointed, ATF Acting Director B. Todd Jones have spoken often and passionately about the importance of implementing more restrictive gun control legislation.  

But the gun-grabbing Regime will not be able to ratify the UN’s global gun control measure without first securing a 2/3rds majority of senators to vote in favor. And it won’t be easy to convince 67 politicians to sign onto a document which countless critics have spent nearly a decade rightly representing as a worldwide assault on the 2nd Amendment. It will be especially difficult as the American public may once again be told that the document has to be “passed” in order to find out what’s IN it!

Late last year the Heritage Foundation obtained an ATT “Draft Paper” from an NGO participating in the Treaty mark-up. The Paper makes it clear that the finished product would be broad in scope, controlling everything “from rifle scopes to battleships.” And though the Treaty purports to monitor only “international arms transfers,” document language shows the UN also wishes to control “internal transfers” as “any firearm transfer—meaning any change in ownership…might conceivably somehow affect another nation…”

Therefore the ATT will demand signatories control and monitor “transfers including ‘transport’ across national territory.” To accomplish this, a nation would necessarily “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory,” creating records on “the type of arms transferred and their ‘end users’.” So as international records would be kept of all weapons bought and sold within the United States, the Treaty would create not only a global arms registry, but the rules by which arms may be transferred and to whom.

Would Senators sympathetic to global arms control try to slip these and other unconstitutional ATT edicts past American voters? 

DC politicians—including Republicans—have already written purposely misleading and legally ineffective language into both the 2012 and 2013 National Defense Authorization Acts for the sole purpose of deceiving the American public into believing their constitutional rights were being looked after.  As for treaties, they commonly include “reservations;” that is, language designed to “define and limit the effect of a ratified treaty.” A few dedicated, gun-grabbing Senators might get the idea of attaching a codicil to the ATT, claiming it would prevent the ratified Treaty imposing upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people thereby safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course they wouldn’t bother to inform Americans that the Arms Trade Treaty specifically forbids any reservations which are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of the Treaty! Would members of the Washington political class be so dishonest as to try such an underhanded stunt?

It’s doubtful that a sufficient number of Senators would risk the fury of the NRA and gun owning voters. But then, stranger things have certainly happened in the nation’s capitol.  After all, a Supreme Court Chief Justice has just prostituted both himself and the Constitution!

Maybe keeping tabs on the Senate wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Sources:

(1) http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/UNArmsTradeTreaty_USSenateLetter.pdf

(2) http://propheticnewsblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/un-arms-trade-treatyloosing-our-right.html

(3) http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-will-restrict-your-gun-rights/

(4) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/dc3364.doc.htm

(5) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/effects-of-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-on-the-us

 

 

Our 2nd Amendment rights threatened by The United Nations

 For nearly 2 decades, possible adoption of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has concerned gun owners who fear the deliberate destruction of their 2nd Amendment rights.

On December 24th the ATT goes into effect in the United States thanks to the signature of John Kerry on behalf of the Obama Administration. Beginning today, Coach is Right will provide background and current information on Treaty terms and what they can mean to Americans across the nation.

By Doug Book, staff writer

First published on Feb. 18, 2011

In 2006, the United Nations decided it was time to explore “…the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.”

The Bush administration voted against the creation of this proposed Arms Trade Treaty, believing that such oversight would be more productive on a national level. But on October 30th, 2009 Barack Hussein Obama reversed course, quite possibly turning the sovereignty of the United States, its Constitution and the rights of its gun owning public over to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the member states.  Many believe this decision to represent a serious threat to the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.

 Claiming that the UN treaty would affect only international arms trafficking, Hillary Clinton said, “conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.” But former UN Ambassador John Bolton is not buying the international aspect. In an interview with NRA News, Bolton stated, “the administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nations, but there’s no doubt…that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” Continuing on, “…many of the implications of these negotiations are very much in their domestic application.” 

 Former congressman Bob Barr agrees with Bolton. “Even though [treaty advocates] all say ‘We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won’t be affected by all this’, that’s nonsense”, he says. “There’s no way…to ensure that firearm transfers internationally don’t fall into the hands of people that the UN doesn’t like…unless you have some sort of national regulation and national tracking.” (2) Taking it even further, Bolton asserts “after the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it…requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.” (2)

 In July of 2010, Julianne Versnel, Director of Operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, represented the Foundation as an NGO delegate at the UN Arms Trade Treaty meeting. Her report is chilling to say the least, as she writes “there appears to be little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule…and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals…” “If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the US Senate, this UN treaty would be the law.”

 We know the Obama regime will sign on to this assault on the 2nd amendment. The vote of Republican senators will decide the outcome.

 To contact your Congressional Representative use this link:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more about this story use these links:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT.shtml  

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=116041  

http://johnlott.blogspot.com/2010/07/report-on-un-arms-trade-treaty.html

 

Environmentalists may soon decide what Americans must eat

 

By Doug Book, editor

It’s not unusual that committees formed in Washington, D.C. should seek to expand the boundaries of their authority and the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) of 2015 has done just that.

Created by Congress in 1980, the purpose of the DGAC is to provide guidelines, updated every 5 years, through which the federal government may “help Americans eat healthier so they [might] live longer.” But Committee Chair Barbara Millen has decided to expand DGAC authority from food and diet to the consideration of all things which are health-related. To Millen, this means the Committee should take on the issue of “food sustainability.”

But sustainability has nothing to do with nutrition or healthy eating. Rather, it is an “environmentalist buzzword” which “…takes into account ‘environment footprint,’ including greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and biodiversity.”  So the committee, originally tasked with the study of diet and ways in which healthier foods might lead to a longer life, is now taking an “ecological approach to nutrition.” Consider the fact that 25% of Committee members are from Massachusetts, a state which contains 2% of the population, and the eco-lunacy begins to make perfect sense.

Thanks to the pursuit of sustainability, “…people will be told to eat a certain way not because the scientific and medical data suggests it’s a better way to eat, but because of environmental and other non-dietary reasons.” At last we can understand the reason for years of heaping praise on organic foods even though studies have shown that they provide “…no health benefits over conventional foods.”

Incredibly, it is now mandatory that federal agencies adopt dietary guidelines established by the DGAC and put them to use as “…standards for government food programs.” As a result, the agenda driven decisions of a committee which values environmentalism over health will hold sway over every food related topic from school lunches to meals served members of the military.

The Committee has recently called for “comprehensive obesity interventions in health care.” This federal fight against fat will establish mandatory, plant-based diets along with required trips to the doctor for weight control and dietary checks. Members of the public deemed obese may look forward to visits at home or at work by “trained interventionists and professional nutrition service providers.” These on-the-spot calorie counters will correct our eating habits by telling us what to eat, how much and when. Won’t that be fun!

And given the vehemently pro-vegetarian bias of DGAC members, at some point the eating of red meat will not simply be discouraged, it will be severely limited or banned in favor of vegetarian diets. After all, the United Nations Food & Agricultural Association has claimed that the methane gas contained in bovine “emissions” makes the world’s 1.5 billion cows a greater threat to the environment than all the cars, buses, planes and other forms of transportation combined!! As corn and lima beans rarely fart, perhaps succotash will become the environmentally friendly substitute for a prime filet.

You know, if all of these decrees and mandates were not implemented for our own good, a guy could get sore!

Sources:

https://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/the-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee-is-unsustainable/

http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/EnvironmentalSustainability.htm

http://www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/1408/kuttner_cover.pdf

http://freebeacon.com/issues/federal-dietary-guidelines-committee-criticized-as-politically-motivated/

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html

http://www.eatthemushroom.com/mag/article.asp?id=705&catID=2

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have is Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

Nancy Pelosi reveals the GOP conspiracy behind Democrat midterm disaster

 

By Doug Book, editor

Countless politicos and media pundits have offered what each believes  the real reason for the drubbing Democrats took on November 4th.  A few mavericks even suggested the impossible–that Barack Obama’s policies were to blame for the carnage rather than his Blackness.

But leave it to San Francisco’s brainy congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, to provide the indisputable skinny on a midterm catastrophe which strengthened the GOP hold on the House and robbed Harry Reid of the Senate. As Nancy explains it, “to succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation. Only by changing our political environment and broadening the universe of the electorate can we build a strong sense of community and an economy that works for everyone.” According to the Pelosi-English Dictionary, Nancy is claiming that the Democrat loss was caused by “voter suppression.”

Wanting very much to retain her leadership position in the House, Nan explained that the results of the midterm had nothing to do with voter mistrust of Barack Obama or the far left direction in which she herself was leading the Democrat minority. Even the laughably bogus claims Pelosi has made time and again to the American public played no part in the holocaust. The fact is there were simply not enough votes to put Democrat candidates over the top. And the reason? Republicans were preventing Democrat voters going to the polls.

Not that Republican backers had decided to emulate the well-meaning, well armed Black Panther poll watchers of 2008. Rather, Pelosi claims the GOP conspiracy began in 2012 with Republicans filing “frivolous” contempt of Congress charges against A.G. Eric Holder, “…the person who [was] assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country.”

The congresswoman didn’t exactly explain how the filing of Contempt of Congress charges against Eric Holder for his refusal to provide information on the DOJ role in Fast and Furious could prevent people from voting. As a matter of fact, the issues appear completely unrelated. But Pelosi certainly deserves credit for spot on, post-election analysis in which she shrewdly connects Democrat losses with a shortage of people voting for Democrat candidates.  The agility of the Democrat mind is a remarkable thing to behold.

Phony claims of a Republican War on Women also suffered a richly deserved death on Election Day as pro-life Senators replaced that body’s pro-abortion crowd and the votes of married women went to GOP candidates by a  54%-44%  spread. Of course, Nancy claimed these unfortunate, anti-abortion numbers were also a result of voter suppression.

 As a rule, Midterm elections have found wealthy, white, conservative, married voters dominating the polls. The question is whether the Republican Party will give conservative voters the necessary reasons to turn out in even greater numbers in 2016. If so, Nancy Pelosi may be shrieking about far more than voter suppression 2 years from now.

Sources:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/pelosi-attacking-holder-part-of-gop-voter-suppression-plan/

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/11/06/nancy-pelosi-vows-to-stay-democratic-leader-calls-pro-life-victory-voter-suppression/

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/11/02/huge-victory-as-pro-life-candidates-win-nationwide-take-over-senate-from-pro-abortion-democrats/

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/war-on-women-democrats-midterms/2014/11/11/id/606701/

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth, all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

 

Ferguson Missouri’s “Don’t Shoot Coalition” issues rules for police behavior but not for rioters

By Doug Book, editor

The New Black Panther Party, Amnesty International, Sistahs Talkin’ back, CAIR and the Organization for Black Struggle are but a few of the groups which make up the “Don’t Shoot Coalition,” a collection of individuals and organizations which has taken it upon themselves to decide how police and other government officials must respond should demonstrations take place in response to a Grand Jury decision against indicting Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown.  

Nineteen proposed Rules of Engagement have been released by the Coalition for the purpose of “ ‘…[deescalating violence]’ without tamping down on peaceful protest action.” I have included a link to the Rules below.

But although the “Don’t Shoot Coalition” was quite specific in telling police and government officials which of their methods of handling rioters/protesters would not be permitted, there were no similar restrictions placed on the activities of the demonstrators themselves!

For example, Rule #7 leaves the safety of police to the tender mercies of protesters, many of them professionals shipped in from other areas of the nation. “Police will wear only the attire minimally required for their safety. Specialized riot gear will be avoided except as a last resort.”  Rule #8 states that “Crowd Control equipment such as armored vehicles, rubber bullets, rifles and tear gas will not be used.”

Protesters taking part in demonstrations as long as 2 months after the shooting have consisted of “Vietnam-era peace activists, New York City seminarians, college students and hundreds of fast-food workers bused in from Chicago, Nashville and other cities.” Fast food workers from Chicago??

Surely St. Louis city officials and police will ignore rules designed to place officers in deadly peril. But, St. Louis politicians typically more interested in the appearance of political correctness than the safety of their officers “…said their department “endorses the statement from the Don’t Shoot Coalition regarding the sanctity and preservation of human life. To that end, and in the spirit of building communications, members of the Unified Command (St. Louis area police and law enforcement) have met with the coalition to define common goals.”

Here’s hoping lunacy doesn’t prevail and police officers are not exposed to injury or death in a display of “good will” on the part of brainless and spineless city officials. Read the entirety of the Rules of Engagement below. It provides a direct link to the mind of the left.

Sources:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/9c5255_9d5572481c7840fbad088ef6d8ae82d4.pdf    Rules of Engagement

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2014/10/14/419380/More-protests.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/us/ferguson-rules-protests/index.html

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have is Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com