Thursday, September 15, 2016

Obama Pushing

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The reign of Barack Obama is almost over (if you believe he's willing to relinquish the White House if Trump wins).  With such a short time to go, and with America not collapsing or becoming the utopian communist madhouse that he had hoped to make it, there is no telling what may be in store for us during the next four months.  He, and the Democrats, especially if Trump wins the presidency, and the Democrats can't get either house of Congress back, will be pulling out all of the stops.  They will be going full throttle (as if they weren't, already).

A couple days ago President Obama met with leaders in Congress to drum up federal funding for the Zika virus.  The fiscal year ends on September 30, and he's desperate to squeeze more money out of a budget that already exceeds revenue levels.  He is now seeking federal funding to help in Louisiana after the flooding (and he called Bush slow when it came to Louisiana. . .), wildfires, and water issues in Flint, Michigan.

Aren't these old issues?  From a liberal left point of view, isn't this kind of late in the game to suddenly give a crap about the flooding in The South, wildfires that have already burned, and water issues in Flint, Michigan that are so old that most people forgot it is still going on?

Wait, that's right, his refusal to do anything unless it helps his progressive agenda is all Bush's fault.

Obama is also still trying to get his globalist and freedom killing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) off the ground, along with closing the detention facility in Guantanamo.

You know how it is.  He promised to do a lot of this stuff eight years ago.  But, time has almost run out - you know, because Obama's been so busy chasing socialized medicine, accepting illegal aliens and Muslim jihadists into the country despite the laws on the books, and a second term fervor for gun control.

On the gun control front he is actually trying to take the whole thing out of America's hands with a final push to get the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (a sign that he and the Democrats are doubtful that they will regain control of the Senate after this election).  Secretary of State John Kerry signed the U.N. Treaty three years ago (an action I thought constitutionally had to be only the President's signature - Article II, Section 2, second paragraph).

Republicans have stood against the U.N. Treaty, believing it could provide an international law rationalization for a national gun registry in the United States, and ultimately a United Nations guided confiscation of all guns in the United States.

“The language is so vague it could almost mean anything. A lot could be done to rationalize gun control. The treaty has no prohibitions, no thou-shalt-nots,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, regarding the treaty. “President [Barack] Obama has for some time used as a defense a cell phone and a pen and not the Constitution or even a treaty for taking action.”

On Aug. 22, the Second Conference of State Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty was held in Geneva. According to the State Department, the U.S. representative to the conference, William Malzahn, said the U.S. wanted to ratify the treaty that establishes export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft, and small arms and light weapons, but was already currently complying.

Currently, 79 countries have ratified the treaty dealing with arms exports and imports, but diplomats from 109 countries participated in the gathering.

The Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Christmas Eve 2014, but the administration has never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification, where it would require 67 senators voting for it to pass. After Kerry signed on in 2013, 50 senators—including three Democrats—signed a letter to Obama expressing concern the treaty was overly “vague and easily politicized” and could encourage a national gun registry.

Regarding Nuclear Tests, Barack Obama plans to do the same as he did on the Iran Deal, and unconstitutionally bypass the U.S. Senate.  The agreement in question is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  It is a treaty designed to permanently outlaw the testing of nuclear weapons.  It was originally signed by President Clinton in 1996, but the United States Senate decisively defeated its ratification in 1999.  

The Democrats don't take "no" for an answer, and simply keep trying until they get what they want.  So, in their eyes, "no" in 1999 did not mean "no," but meant "we'll get it later."

Since the U.S. Senate doesn't seem to be cooperating, President Obama is attempting an end-around Congress by going to the United Nations to see if the United Nations Security Council could write up a resolution which will have the same effect of ending -- or banning -- nuclear testing so that he doesn't have to worry about the U.S. Senate.

The whole point of Senate Ratification in the Constitution is so that there is a check and balance regarding treaties.  The President is not king, he is not above the law, and he cannot make these kinds of decisions without Senatorial approval (of course, this is an even deeper discussion when we bring the 17th Amendment into the discussion, but that's for another time).

Obama's proposal to go through the U.N. is a direct usurpation of power that screams "dictator."  This is more than just a violation of our American Constitution, it is a dangerous and treasonous misuse of power that the President simply does not possess in the first place.

As for the crux of what this is about, having a nuclear deterrent has been the foundation of America's national security policy.  While Obama and the Democrats seek a "world without nuclear weapons," the reality is that the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to nuclear weapons, and the bad characters of the world (North Korea and Iran to name a couple) are not going to abide by any "world without nuclear weapons" agreement.

Another reality is that nuclear testing is necessary because it is time to begin replacing much of our nuclear arsenal.  Our current nuclear weapons are now seriously beyond the end of their design life. We have not replaced them, or even tested any nuclear weapons, in 24 years.  We must be able to test existing weapons so that we can know if they are still viable, and test new weapons so that we can safely replace them.

A ban unilaterally initiated by Obama without Senatorial approval is not only unconstitutional, but could set into motion an opportunity for the bad actors of the world to point their own weapons in our direction. . . as we eliminate any hope to retaliate by eliminating our own.

As Ronald Reagan told us, peace is kept through strength.

Iranian behavior in the Persian Gulf is also getting out of hand, and worse.  In addition to last January's unacceptable confrontation and apprehension as prisoners of U.S. Navy sailors by Iranian forces, reports of Iranian vessels harassing U.S. Navy Ships continue to this day. . . and if anything, the harassment has worsened.  This is what happens when a country portrays an image of weakness.  Now that Iran has more than enough nuclear material to send nuclear madness in our direction, what do we think a ban on testing by Obama would say to Iran's or North Korea's war-hungry radicals in charge?  Even the liberal left Huffington Post is reporting that, "North Korea will have enough material for about 20 nuclear bombs by the end of this year, with ramped-up uranium enrichment facilities and an existing stockpile of plutonium, according to new assessments by weapons experts.  The North has evaded a decade of U.N. sanctions to develop the uranium enrichment process, enabling it to run an effectively self-sufficient nuclear program that is capable of producing around six nuclear bombs a year, they said."

Iran already has nuclear weapons, and are no doubt right there with North Korea in terms of production.

And who knows what else the Obama administration has up its sleeves that we have not even caught a whiff of.

Obama is pushing, it's a final lunge for the destruction of American Exceptionalism, and if in November the Democrats don't keep the White House, that push is going to become incredibly . . . shall I say. . . confrontational.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: