Obama to unilaterally impose gun control

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3354952/New-bypass-Congress-gun-control-Obama-demands-tougher-background-checks-WITHOUT-vote.html

The president's advisers are close to finishing a proposal that would allow him to enact new gun control measures without congressional approval, a top White House official has revealed.

The recommendations will be ready 'in short order,' Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett said yesterday evening at a vigil to commemorate the Dec. 14, 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that resulted in 27 deaths, including the gunman.

According to the Associated Press, Jarrett indicated that advisers had determined how the president could unilaterally expand background checks using his executive authority.

The White House would not comment on the effort today.



The president's advisers are close to finishing a proposal that would allow him to enact new gun control measures without congressional approval, a top White House official has revealed

'At this point, I still don't have an update on the progress the administration is making on scrubbing the rules,' White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at his daily press briefing.

This was after he proverbially beat down Republicans in the legislative branch for attempting to attach ideological riders to a must-pass spending bill in order to 'sneak 'em through.'

Such 'ideologically motivated policies that wouldn't otherwise be able to pass Congress,' he noted.

One such measure that House Republicans wanted to tack on the bill was a National Rifle Association-backed proposal that pertained guns and felons' ability to purchase them.

Earnest indicated today that he was primarily referring to earmarks, which 'in some cases' benefit the 'biggest contributors to the Republican Party.'

But he's generically been jabbing Republicans throughout the process for trying to use the legislation as a vehicle for partisan proposals.

'We have been aggressively advocating to Republicans in Congress that they should focus on the budgetary priorities of the country and not try to advance ideological aspects of their agenda that have been stalled other places,' he said Tuesday afternoon.

Democrats have also tried to insert gun language into the massive spending bill.

Pushing what the administration has dubbed the 'no-fly, no buy' proposal, Democrats have sought to bar Americans on the FBI's terror watch list from purchasing guns.

Why do they not just disband Congress?

All they do is obstruct our emperor.

Originally posted by whodey
Why do they not just disband Congress?

All they do is obstruct our emperor.

It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3354952/New-bypass-Congress-gun-control-Obama-demands-tougher-background-checks-WITHOUT-vote.html

The president's advisers are close to finishing a proposal that would allow him to enact new gun control measures without congressional approval, a top White House official has revealed.

The recommendations will be re ...[text shortened]... sal, Democrats have sought to bar Americans on the FBI's terror watch list from purchasing guns.

It's "proposal" Whodey, not a "universal ban" in itself. If you had bothered to look up the definition of the word proposal, you would not have had to write the rest of your mindless drivel.

😞

Originally posted by sonhouse
It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?

Almost every President since WWII has engaged in Warfare without a legal declaration of War. It isn't partisan, but we the people tend to favor it politically.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?

Bush Jr is still alive. There's no such thing as a living "previous emperor".

The "American Empire" meme is propaganda and wordplay that is intended to distort the truth. USA is not an Empire. You all forget what real Empires were like.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Bush Jr is still alive. There's no such thing as a living "previous emperor".

The "American Empire" meme is propaganda and wordplay that is intended to distort the truth. USA is not an Empire. You all forget what real Empires were like.

In 1783, the year the United States formally gained its independence
from Great Britain, George Washington described the newborn republic
as a “rising empire.” He elaborated a few years later, as the
fledgling nation struggled for viability under the restraints imposed
by the Articles of Confederation and the constraints imposed by the
European powers. America was but an “infant empire,” Washington
conceded to his former comrade-in-arms, the Marquis de Lafayette.
“However unimportant America may be considered at present,” he
nevertheless predicted, “there will assuredly come a day, when this
country will have some weight in the scale of Empires.”

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, when the viability of the new
nation was highly precarious, Thomas Jefferson famously labeled the
United States the “Empire of Liberty.” More than a quarter-century
later, however, after Jefferson had abandoned his initial optimism regarding
the potential for the peoples native to America to embrace
liberty as defined by immigrants to America, and having played an
instrumental role in America’s enactment of the Northwest Ordinance
and purchase of the Louisiana Territory, the Declaration of Independence’s
lead author relabeled America the “Empire for Liberty.” This
book argues that Jefferson’s revision signaled a commitment to a more
aggressive, proactive extension of that sphere of liberty—and hence a
greater American empire.
Further, for Americans liberty is even more difficult to define than
empire. Americans believe in liberty and they support the advancement
of liberty, but they interpret the word so broadly, and in so many
different contexts, that it all but loses its meaning.

When George Washington used the word empire, he meant a polity that exercised
sovereignty over and was responsible for the security of a large expanse
of territory that, composed of previously separate units now
subordinate to the metropolis (thus distinguishing an empire from,
for example, a commonwealth or even an alliance), included many
peoples of diverse “races” (as broadly defined at that time) and nationalities.
As would be expected because of violence’s historic role in the
establishment of empires, not all the people within the heterogeneous
population could qualify as citizens, not all were equal, not all could or
would assimilate, and not all consented to the rule of the sovereign.20
There is thus merit to Arthur Schlesinger’s argument that Washington
and his fellow Founding Fathers used empire interchangeably
with state. But their use of empire was not due simply to their desire
for a synonym. They had ambitions that went beyond consolidation
and were signaled by the word empire. They had in mind a particular
“genre” of state that would grow in size, strength, and prosperity,
exercise control over populations that either considered themselves
autonomous or resided beyond America’s political boundaries

The meaning of empire changed over the course of the nineteenth
century, especially by its latter half. Until then its definition remained
primarily functional, with the emphasis on the exercise of governance.
In this anodyne sense there was little reason to associate empire with
anything pejorative. Americans did not, even as they annihilated or
forcibly relocated Native Americans, executed foreign nationals, and
conquered territories. This was because empire and state were still
largely synonymous, and U.S. behavior was acceptable for a state with
its capabilities; because U.S. expansion remained continental and restricted
to contiguous territory (in the view of many, as a consequence,
“natural” ) with the purpose of bringing civilization to what was perceived
as wilderness; because empires were commonplace features of
the international system (what nation did not aspire to be an empire?);
and because there were few audible voices of opposition or protest.
That the U.S. Constitution required the incorporation of added territory
as states, and the populations of these states were invariably eager
to apply for membership, reinforced the consensus that Americans
should be proud of their empire.
The Civil War and the occupation of the Southern states during Reconstruction
served as a catalyst for changing views about empire.
Contesting the meaning of liberty, white Americans as well as black,
Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and others challenged the central
government’s authority to deny them self-rule. The implications
transcended traditional disputes over federalism, republicanism, and
states’ rights. Further, the extension of the British Empire through the
exploitation of its commercial dominance to acquire political jurisdiction
without establishing colonies, for example in Asia and Latin
America, indicated that a metropolis could exercise rule informally.
It was not until the mid-twentieth century that scholars, following
John A. Gallagher and Ronald E. Robinson, began to use the phrase
imperialism of free trade. In the late nineteenth century, nevertheless,
imperialism as a stand-alone concept dramatically entered the political
vocabulary.

All from introduction to

Empire for Liberty:
A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz
Richard H. Immerman

Originally posted by finnegan
In 1783, the year the United States formally gained its independence
from Great Britain, George Washington described the newborn republic
as a “rising empire.” He elaborated a few years later, as the
fledgling nation struggled for viability under the restraints imposed
by the Articles of Confederation and the constraints imposed by the
European powers. ...[text shortened]... re will assuredly come a day, when this
country will have some weight in the scale of Empires.”

The USA certainly has weight in the scale of Empires (and beyond!) but George Washington showed what he really believed when he refused to be President for life.

Originally posted by finnegan
The meaning of empire changed over the course of the nineteenth
century, especially by its latter half. Until then its definition remained
primarily functional, with the emphasis on the exercise of governance.
In this anodyne sense there was little reason to associate empire with
anything pejorative. Americans did not, even as they annihilated or
forci ...[text shortened]... ertheless,
imperialism as a stand-alone concept dramatically entered the political
vocabulary.

The meaning of the word Empire changed during the 19th century, did it? So Victorian Britain was...what? Something else? How about the Empire of Japan? Not really an Empire by the new definition I suppose. We'll have to find a new name for such entities to distinguish them from the new Empire (which is what we used to call Republics like in pre Imperial Rome)

I bet the US Empire didn't war with the Spanish Empire because Spain was using the old pre 19th century meaning of Empire. They can't BOTH be Empires. Totally different political system. Hint - One had an unelected King.

🙄

Originally posted by sonhouse
It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?

So you would justify one evil by another?

Originally posted by finnegan
All from introduction to

Empire for Liberty:
A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz
Richard H. Immerman

The "American Empire" meme is propaganda and wordplay that is intended to distort the truth. USA is not an Empire. You all forget what real Empires were like.