Hey Soetoro! Make the moron Koh your Ambassador to Iran. Just before the line goes dead he can report the incoming and the pretty bright flashes of light when Israel finally takes out the Ayatollahs' nukes.
Posted on 06/24/2009 7:55:22 PM PDT by neverdem
Vote Coming to Confirm Anti-gun Radical -- "Guns Kill Civil Society," says State Department Nominee
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a Wednesday vote on a State Department nominee who supports gun control on a global scale.
While advocates of the Second Amendment have come to expect that appointees of President Barack Obama would be hostile to the rights of gun owners, the president's nominee for legal advisor to the State Department reaches a whole new level of anti-gun extremism.
Harold Hongju Koh, who served at the State Department under the Clinton administration, is a self-described "trans-nationalist" who believes that our laws -- and our Constitution -- should be brought into conformity with international agreements.
"If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the global rules," Koh told a Cleveland audience.
Koh's positions treat our constitutional law as if it were a mere local ordinance on the greater world stage. This is of particular concern to gun owners at a time when the U.S. Congress is under pressure from President Obama to ratify an international gun control treaty with countries in the western hemisphere. That treaty, known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA, would likely serve as a forerunner to a more extensive United Nations initiative, the "Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects."
The Bush administration, under the leadership of UN Ambassador John Bolton, rejected the small arms treaty. Bolton plainly told the world that the United States will not accept a gun control document that violates our Constitutional right to bear arms. Harold Koh commented that Bolton was being "needlessly provocative."
In a paper entitled "A world drowning in guns," Koh maintains that a civil society cannot exist with broad gun ownership: "Guns kill civil society," he said.
Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in positions of power. The chief lawyer for the State Department is just the position someone like him needs to put his agenda into play.
While Koh's nomination has been delayed largely because of Second Amendment concerns, Sen. Reid plans to force a vote this week.
It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and insist that they vote AGAINST this anti-gun extremist.
ACTION: Please contact your Senators immediately and urge them to oppose Harold Hongju Koh's nomination to the State Department. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
The Senate is expected to soon vote on a State Department nominee who supports gun control on a global scale.
Harold Hongju Koh, who served at the State Department under the Clinton administration, is a self-described "trans-nationalist" who believes that our laws -- and our Constitution -- should be brought into conformity with international agreements.
According to Koh, "If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the global rules." Well, I don't support global rules that contradict our own Constitution.
Koh supports international gun control treaties such as the United Nations initiative entitles the "Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects."
When former UN Ambassador John Bolton told the world that the United States will not accept a gun control document that violates our Constitutional right to bear arms, Harold Koh commented that Bolton was being "needlessly provocative."
And in a 2003 Fordham Law Review article entitled "A world drowning in guns," Koh maintains that a civil society cannot exist with broad gun ownership: "Guns kill civil society," he wrote.
I urge you to reject this trans-nationalist, anti-gun extremist who would place foreign laws and international agreements on equal footing (at minimum) with the U.S. Constitution.
Sincerely,
© 2009 by Gun Owners of America
I’ll get rid of my guns... after all the criminals and governments are disarmed.
Hey Soetoro! Make the moron Koh your Ambassador to Iran. Just before the line goes dead he can report the incoming and the pretty bright flashes of light when Israel finally takes out the Ayatollahs' nukes.
Climate change vote: Pelosi’s green gamble
New GOP tack: Will Sotomayor uphold Constitution?
White House (Obama's) War On Science
Sun spot cycle impacting global warming and cooling
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
If guns kill civil society, why do not these idiots do away with their personal armed bodyguards, and do away with guns for police?
No, it is the exact opposite. Guns preserve civil society. Guns protect civil society. From criminals who will use ANY instrument as a weapon - hands, knives, screwdrivers, guns, hammers, bricks, whatever - against people who are not criminals.
Guns allow law abiding citizens NOT to be VICTIMS of criminals. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns. They will because they don’t care if it’s illegal for them to have guns or not.
Fine. All governments disarm first. Show me evidence of their total disarmament. At that time, I will decide if I also wish to disarm, or rule the planet as its lone armed inhabitant.
You know what’s funny? When I was in Iraq I was REQUIRED to be armed at all times... as were the other military members.
And you know what, they were more civil than a lot of people who weren’t in a war-zone (ie here).
Therefore, the premise is fatally flawed.
“Guns kill civil society”
Uhhh...The greatest uncivil acts in history were perpetrated against unarmed people by governments.
Loser. Communist. Traitor.
Concurring bump. Use heavy, quality stationery ("resume paper" will do), and write the letter in your own hand, and address it in your own hand.
The only address that is needed: "Sen. X, The Congress, Washington, D.C." Period. Screw office buildings, office numbers, street numbers, ZIP codes. The U.S. Post Office hasn't lost the U.S. Congress in over 200 years. They WILL find your senator.
Want to be politically creative and get into Dingy Harry's pants? Send your letter, if your own senator's a safe "good guy" vote, to a Western States Democratic senator. Someone like, say, Max Baucus of Montana. Remind him where his constituents sit on the issue, and how likely they will be to reward a senator who voted to expatriate nod over an Article of the Constitution governing firearms, to all those cheese-eating little NGO termites who've been trying to use the U.N. to skin America for the last 50 years.
[Dorkwad Koh, article] "If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the global rules," Koh told a Cleveland audience.
How do you say "**** YOU!" in Mandarin?
This is all about some NGO-driven crap that the British and Japanese instigated as a way to try to get the U.N. to peel away the Second Amendment by treaty.
Mostly NGO people have been driving this since the late 80's. The NRA was involved early, but the termites told them where to get off the bus after a couple of years.
The line of attack is, U.N. aid workers in Africa were threatened, and lots of people were killed, by private and insurgent armies carrying light weapons. Therefore, light weapons are bad? Light weapons are bad for you, ngkay? Don't have light weapons, they're bad....
The basic argument is moronic, but the form is to try to tie dead African villagers and threatened U.N. aid operations to the U.S. retention of its Second Amendment, and to use a combination of "legitimacy" and "bandwagon" ploys to get us to "come off of that old cowboy stuff" and start acting like "civilized" countries. Civilized, like, say, Great Britain and Japan, on the subject of firearms.
Harold Hongju Koh, who served at the State Department under the Clinton administration, is a self-described "trans-nationalist" who believes that our laws -- and our Constitution -- should be brought into conformity with international agreements. "If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the global rules," Koh told a Cleveland audience. Koh's positions treat our constitutional law as if it were a mere local ordinance on the greater world stage.Thanks neverdem.
Koh seems completely ignorant of the founding notions of this country — or perhaps he considers himself superior to the founders who, to a man, considered an armed populace as the one adamantine essential of a civil society.
Did this guy get a pass yesterday? Sorry I missed this thread.
Re: “Never copy those forms for idiots. Take an idea or two and compose your own letter.”
While I would never discourage anyone from putting more distinctive or individual effort into their political activism, discouraging the use of the forms plays into politicians’ hands and is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Many people will start with good intentions, but never get around to a personal effort because the activation energy hump is increased considerably over the forms.
So the perfect attitude actually reduces the population count by the forms that never get mailed in (seen as potential lost votes) a congress critter sees because many will put the creation of their protest masterpiece on the back burner and it will never get sent or sent in a timely way.
Staffers only see numbers, they don’t take the time to read logic or content when they process junk mail, and rest assured your personal letter is work and therefore just as much junk mail as any form letter to a volunteer or staffer. Worse, since the content of an individual letter is harder to parse for positional content, it may not be counted correctly at all. I’ve had auto form letter responses from the mandarins that indicate they thought I was a gun prohibitionist. Either they didn’t read the letter, or thought it would be fun to torque a die hard, or the data entry automaton made a mistake.
Even if content is considered, what does a form letter communicate versus a personal letter? A form letter shows you are part of an organized initiative, maybe someone who donates money and time, and who doesn’t waste time being inefficient. A personal letter though more individual, may actually convey isolation, single issue focus (to a staffer this says crank), and handwritten says technologically backward.
So by all means, write a personal letter, but please do it after dropping the ready made form letter in the mail first. For the cost of an extra stamp, you double your representation and convey an organized unified voice that the politicos know will be following and communicating their compliance or treachery.
Put yourself in the pols or staffers shoes. Wouldn’t you want the myth of the ‘useless’ form letter propagated? “Those forms are ignored” says the perfect functionary from the czargressman’s local propaganda service office. Yeah, right, I believe that. Even if it doesn’t discourage you, that little gem of a deflection does keep less dedicated voices from speaking (form-lettering) out, and seduces the disciplined into spending more time and energy that might be spent pounding them on other issues.
The lib-socialist groups never discourage their ranks from showing collectivist organization because they aren’t proud to be individuals as much as part of a greater cause. While we may disdain their underlying philosophy, the staffers and bureaucrats are collectivists themselves and respect that behavior more than evidence (to them) of perhaps an even greater number of disparate lone voices. This applies as much to conservative pols as liberals. If they respected individuals, they would go find jobs in the voluntary market sector. Anyone who can stand working in the stilted environment of government has already displayed a hive mindset. If you don’t look like part of a big hive, your voice, regardless of position, will be discounted.
Did you see this?
The guy is poison, plain and simple, and should fit very well into the current administration regime.
Called socialists an rinos this am an gave their phone squirrel a free nut.
Vote for Koh is vote for anarchy IMO.
And those who swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution should be prosecuted if they break that oath.
Can we still hang traitors? Please?
Obama is the problem not Koh. If Obama were not in office, we wouldn;t be facing people like Koh. Block Koh and Obama will find a clone.
The only way to deal effectively with this guy politically is to support those people of integrity and courage who are tying to force him to release his birth information. If he is NOT a born citizen those are grounds for a court fight and - if the GOP ever gets its head out of its butt - for an impeachment later on. Presenting oneself as qualified for the office of President when one is not is certainly a high crime and misdemeanor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.