Tag Archives: Supreme Court

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.


(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



Republican Senate candidates Cotton, Brown and Land moving up by attacking amnesty


By Kevin “Coach” Collins

For many conservatives this election is an odd mixture of joy and foreboding.  On the one hand we are happy that the indications point to an end of the tyrannical reign of Harry Reid; but on the other we are faced with the prospect of more of the same old same old from Republicans.

While there are many issues to be weighed as we decide what to do on November 4th, few would argue that amnesty is not our top concern. If the Republicans join Barack Obama in granting amnesty to illegal aliens our country will collapse and eventually cease to be.

We know this and Republicans know this but many don’t seem to care. Nevertheless, we have to be mindful of the Senate’s confirmation powers and the likelihood of Supreme Court positions and other very important appointments being brought before a Reid controlled Senate in the near future. This presents the dilemma many conservatives are dealing with.

Those who agree that amnesty is the transcendent issue of this election and have been waiting for a way to get into this fight, without feeling like a sellout, have a few candidates to support.

Among the candidates amnesty concerned conservatives have to back in Senate elections are Tom Cotton in Arkansas, Scott Brown in New Hampshire and Terri Lynn Land in Michigan.

Brown, we know, is not a true conservative. Nevertheless, he has made up some twenty points on his Democrat opponent since mid-summer by attacking her on her support of amnesty. Tom Cotton has jumped to a lead in his race in Arkansas by doing the same.

We’ve heard about these races but we have not heard much about Terri Lynn Land’s campaign in Michigan. This was supposed to be a “laugher” for the Democrats who have owned the seat for a while. Land, however, is also a fierce opponent of amnesty and to the surprise of many on both sides she has pulled to within two points of her opponent 41/39.

Rasmussen is calling this a statistical tie; but given the problems Democrats are having across the country and the “late hour,” Land is moving in the right direction against a popular Democrat who is in the low 40s. With a huge undecided cohort in Michigan, Land certainly can win.

Donations to these candidates will be a blow against amnesty:







Learn the truth about Democrats.

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com



California’s teachers union hears the footsteps of workers’ freedom

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

The California Teachers Association (CTA) has quietly started to prepare its members for life after extortion.  It has put together a report titled “Not if, but when: Living in a world without Fair Share,” in which it acknowledges that the days of being able to extort teachers to bribe Democrats may be fast coming to an end. Automatic, compulsory union membership for teachers is being challenged in court and the thugs that run the state’s biggest teachers union can see the outcome will lead to an end of their cushy lives.

They have prepared a slideshow outlining the “terrible consequences” of their racket being curtailed. They warn the union will lose members, have to reduce staff (Oh no!) will lose the ability to influence pension and benefits decisions and see smaller chapters close down. They realize that teachers will flee their clutches the minute they are given the opportunity. When they see the plantation gate has been opened the stampede will be on as has happened elsewhere across the country when union slaves have been set free.  

The CTA is well aware that the recent Supreme Court case Harris V. Quinn has declared union shake-downs unconstitutional. In “Harris” the Court heard the case of Illinois forcing home care workers to pay their “fair share,” to the SEIU although they never had any intention of joining a union.  As the CTA see it, the union greed and overreach of the SEIU has provided the grounds for the “death knell for fair share.”    

CTA fears of extinction are well founded. When Republican Scott Walker broke the stranglehold of unions on state workers, union membership dropped dramatically, to a point where they are no longer political players in the state.  

The case that is currently being argued at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could be the end of the CTA’s power if it hits the Supreme Court. Given the mood of the Court toward union overreaches it could very well bring down the curtain on the CTA’s extortion scheme.  

Source:  http://freebeacon.com/issues/not-if-but-when/

The Left reveal their colossal fear of religion in the Hobby Lobby case

By Doug Book, editor

In spite of having mastered the frequently demanding practice of deceit, once in a while genuine motivation breaks through the left’s façade of compassion and caring. Though not widely recognized, it happened in the Hobby Lobby case decided by the Supreme Court on Monday.

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, Congress provided the option of going to court to anyone who sought religious based exemption from a federal law. In providing this statutory right to religious objectors, Congress wrote that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…”

Among other things, Hobby Lobby attorneys argued that imposing massive fines against their client for not providing “abortion drugs” to employees must obviously represent the sort of substantial burden addressed by Congress in the statute. The Supreme Court agreed.

Concerned that the substantial burden language in the RFRA might at least in part derail Barack Obama’s efforts to subordinate religious freedom to the commands of the state, a number of the Government’s amici—friends of the Court arguing on behalf of the government case—advised justices that there would be no “burden” if Hobby Lobby “…simply terminated health insurance for all of its employees.” That is, “…terminating health insurance and compensating employees with additional wages would be no burden.” Hobby Lobby would no longer face the threat–that is the BURDEN–of government fines for the company’s Christian refusal to supply abortion drugs to its employees.

The Court rejected this argument in its 5-4 finding for Hobby Lobby.

But hold on. Wasn’t the overarching purpose of ObamaCare to provide health insurance–affordable, quality health insurance that is—to the uninsured? Weren’t these the premier talking points of the left? So why are government amici suggesting that a closely held corporation   providing insurance coverage to some 15,000 employees suddenly deny those people coverage? Shouldn’t Obama’s forces congratulate employers of this sort?

Could there be a better example of the contempt in which the practice of religion—especially Christianity—is held by the far left? Contempt and fear that is. For the left believe it must be their exclusive right—the right of government–to teach people the difference between right and wrong; that is, teach and demand that the behavior mandated by those “teachings” be executed without question or refusal!

But the lessons provided by 2000 years of Christianity put a big hole in government’s dreams of being the owners and purveyors of absolute moral authority. The Hobby Lobby case made it clear that the left is far more interested in curtailing—preferably destroying—the practice of religious freedom than in making sure everyone has health insurance.

Once again the left allows the mask to slip, showing us who and what they are.





Affirmative Action takes another hit in Supreme Court

by Doug Book,  editor

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the nations Colleges and Universities must be prepared to demonstrate that all non-race based attempts to achieve student diversity have failed before the tightly controlled use of racial preference may even be considered.

And on April 22nd, in a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled in Schuette v BAMN that Proposal 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Michigan voters which “…end[s] racial preferences in many aspects of state government,” including university admissions, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by denying any person the “equal protection of the law.”

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided that the practice of racial preference could continue in the admissions department at the University of Michigan. The rulings came in 2 cases which saw Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cast the deciding vote.

It was the fact of these decisions permitting reverse discrimination which prompted the people of Michigan to end racial preference by passing Proposal 2.

Writing the lead opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that the case did not so much involve the question of race as “…whether and in what manner voters…may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preference in governmental decisions.”

And it was in approving Proposal 2 that “…Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power.”

During the 60’s and 70’s, the Court developed the “political process doctrine” which “allowed courts to act where a state’s action pose[d] a risk of causing specific injuries on account of race.” Whether on not discriminatory intent was involved in a state policy, the court had given itself absolute authority, not to make certain that legislation was race neutral, but that it literally favored the interests and agenda of minorities. It was reverse racism, not simply permitted but mandated by the court.

Today, however, a Supreme Court far more likely to ground its decisions in the Constitution has ruled that affirmative action preferences are unconstitutional if used, among other things, to “promote racial balancing,” compensatory justice,” or redress “statistical inequalities. As Justice Scalia noted in Schuette, “…if any policy was deliberately designed to benefit minorities, we would hold the policy unconstitutional.”

At last, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause has become just that. And it has once again become the right of American citizens to determine the manner in which racial preference and other controversial issues will be resolved.”