Prink & Gussy

[Flanders]

Cross-dressers got away with prinking treaties —— the Iran Deal & the TPP —— to look like legislation, but they cannot gussy up the ATT enough to pass muster as a law:

. . . the ATT is an international gun control treaty designed to be implemented apart from, or in spite of, the general framework of governance for countries that are signatories to it.​

Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that the ATT will go the way of illegal aliens, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol). Why legislate when you can regulate. The toadies in Congress will do exactly as they are told by the New World Order crowd regardless of the US Constitution, laws, and media’s highly-overrated definition of public opinion:

Thus, while it will not do away with the Second Amendment on paper, it will subjugate the Second Amendment to the ATT’s gun controls if Obama administration officials return and implement the plans they will discuss in Mexico City.​

I believe that Taqiyya the Liar & Company concluded they have nothing to lose. They got away with so much they have to be saying to each other:

Let’s pile it on. With conservatives openly campaigning on rescinding and repealing everything we did, some of it has to escape the ax. ​

In the event Democrats survive a wave of repeal and rescind, they would select one item to save that is more important than the others. That item would be implementing gun registration via the ATT. Confiscation has long been the goal of registration:

ATT was pushed under the guise of stopping “small arms [and] light weapons” from crossing borders. And when it was being discussed in 2013, Breitbart News warned that firearm registration must proceed from the ATT if it is to be enforceable. After all, how can agents tasked with enforcing this treaty ascertain the origin of smuggled weapons without a comprehensive registration on file?

Moreover, the NRA pointed out that the treaty all but calls for a registry from the start inasmuch as it requires “importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including ‘end use or end user documentation’ for a ‘minimum of ten years.’” This information on “end users” is not only a de-facto international gun registry but one that could be “made available to foreign governments.”​

Which laws to repeal and rescind will determine which “Republican” goes to the White House. Whether it be Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump, a true conservative president will need a supermajority in both Houses to stop everything Democrats most want:

We must be diligent, especially because Democrat Senators have already shown their willingness to subjugate the Second Amendment to the ATT. Forty-four Democrat Senators voted for the ATT in April 2013.

Obama Officials Heading to Mexico to Discuss International Gun Control Via UN Treaty
by AWR Hawkins
23 Aug 2015

White House Revisits International Gun Control Via UN Treaty​

Finally, there is so much that needs to be undone, I fear that implementing the ATT will go unnoticed. At this point, it would help if conservatives find out where each wannabe stands.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP is based upon an entirely fallacious premise and belongs in the Conspiracy zone IMO.

snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

• The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following:
  
  • The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
    
    
  • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
    
    
  • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
  
  As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key "red line" that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies "non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of signatories.'

• No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

• The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

As Rachel Stohl, a senior associate with the Managing Across Boundaries initiative at the Stimson Center and co-author of the book The International Arms Trade, noted:
Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners’ rights. It would do nothing of the kind.

The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms” within its territory. The treaty's preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.

Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized these points in his statement welcoming the treaty's adoption, noting that “nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” a point on which the United States insisted throughout the negotiations. This treaty has no reach into domestic gun policy, nor would it create a United Nations gun registry. There is absolutely nothing in it that violates the Second Amendment.

In short, there is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

Read more at snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

 

[Flanders]

The OP is based upon an entirely fallacious premise

To Derideo_Te: Disagree if you must, but do not speak as though you understand my premise.

Apparently you never followed my advice: Take a course on reading comprehension.

Number 8 permalink:

Christiecrats v. Reagan Democrats | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP is based upon an entirely fallacious premise

To Derideo_Te: Disagree if you must, but do not speak as though you understand my premise.

Apparently you never followed my advice: Take a course on reading comprehension.

Number 8 permalink:

Christiecrats v. Reagan Democrats | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Snopes debunked the false premise that your entire OP is based upon. Take it up with them and prove them wrong.

 

[Flanders]

Snopes debunked the false premise that your entire OP is based upon. Take it up with them and prove them wrong.

To Derideo_Te: Snopes did not read my post —— YOU DID —— prove you are right.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Snopes debunked the false premise that your entire OP is based upon. Take it up with them and prove them wrong.

To Derideo_Te: Snopes did not read my post —— YOU DID —— prove you are right.

I already did in post #2.

So far you haven't proven that Snopes is wrong so my position stands unchallenged proving that the OP is based upon a completely false premise.

 

[Flanders]

In the event Democrats survive a wave of repeal and rescind, they would select one item to save that is more important than the others. That item would be implementing gun registration via the ATT. Confiscation has long been the goal of registration:

The United Nations crowd is irrevocably committed to registration:

Secretary of State John Kerry once again signed the United Nations Arms Treaty on Wednesday, a move that supporters say will help stop weapons from getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists worldwide but critics contend is is a backdoor assault on law-abiding gun owners.​

An all-out assault is called for knowing that the clock is running out on Taqiyya the Liar’s administration:

The treaty would require nations to conduct a detailed registration of all guns. The issue is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, but one of the leading experts on guns says even if the agreement is only ratified in other countries, it can still work to erode gun ownership in America.

“The point of this is just to try to reduce legitimate gun ownership in other countries. Eventually it has some feedback effect in the United States. If Canadians are much less likely to own guns, gun control activists will point to them and say, ‘Look how outlandish we are in the United States,’” said John Lott, an economist who serves as president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Obama's next backdoor assault on 2nd Amendment
Posted By Greg Corombos On 08/27/2015 @ 9:44 pm

Obama’s next backdoor assault on 2nd Amendment​

Lurch signed the ATT in 2013:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signs the Arms Trade Treaty as Under Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Miguel Serpa Soares looks on during the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)​

A second signing gives me a sinking feeling in my stomach because I fear it has something to do with the Iran Deal. I firmly believe that the New World Order crowd got tired of their treaties going unratified; hence, legislating the Iran Deal was designed to circumvent treaty ratification altogether. Basically, if the nest of traitors get away with legislating the Iran Deal as a non-treaty, how long will it be before they do the same thing with the ATT? Indeed, the Iran Deal is laying the foundation for bypassing Congress on every United Nations treaty.

NOTE: There is long list of United Nations treaties sitting in limbo waiting to be ratified:

List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Unratified treaties in limbo is the reason I’ve often said that presidents should be required to at least make an effort to ratify treaties they sign before they leave office. Congress could abolish shelf-life by passing a law stating that whenever a president fails to get a treaty ratified before leaving office that treaty is automatically rejected for all time. Call it the No Shelf Life law.

 

[Flanders]

In the event Democrats survive a wave of repeal and rescind, they would select one item to save that is more important than the others. That item would be implementing gun registration via the ATT. Confiscation has long been the goal of registration:

Which laws to repeal and rescind will determine which “Republican” goes to the White House. Whether it be Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump, a true conservative president will need a supermajority in both Houses to stop everything Democrats most want:

Funding for butchering babies has to be a loser for Democrats. A strategy to fight for birthright babies and selling baby parts at the same time is not going to get votes except the ones they already have. Indeed, I am certain that defending either policy will lose votes irrespective of how much help Democrats get from the media. My guess is that they already wrote off funding Planned Parenthood if defending it runs into a minimum of resistance:

4 Ways the Senate Could End Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood
Kelsey Harkness
August 31, 2015

4 Ways Senate Could Defund Planned Parenthood​

Nevertheless, a supermajority in both chambers would be a great cushion no matter how the presidential election turns out.

 

[Flanders]

In the event Democrats survive a wave of repeal and rescind, they would select one item to save that is more important than the others. That item would be implementing gun registration via the ATT. Confiscation has long been the goal of registration:

Who are they bull-shitting!

Mexico’s theory is that, since any gun in the U.S. might at some point conceivably cross the U.S. border, all U.S. guns have to be controlled in the name of controlling the international arms trade. That’s not going to happen at this meeting (or ever, if the U.S. retains its sanity).

Mexico, Interested in US Gun Control, Pushes International Arms Treaty
Ted Bromund
September 05, 2015

Mexico, Interested in US Gun Control, Pushes International Arms Treaty​

Mexico’s theory is that well-armed American’s might start defending their country instead of trusting a United Nations treaty to do it for them.

 

[Flanders]

Indeed, the Iran Deal is laying the foundation for bypassing Congress on every United Nations treaty.

Where is it written in stone that the Senate must ratify treaties? Answer:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2​

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

 

[Dan Stubbs]

In the event Democrats survive a wave of repeal and rescind, they would select one item to save that is more important than the others. That item would be implementing gun registration via the ATT. Confiscation has long been the goal of registration:

Which laws to repeal and rescind will determine which “Republican” goes to the White House. Whether it be Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump, a true conservative president will need a supermajority in both Houses to stop everything Democrats most want:

Funding for butchering babies has to be a loser for Democrats. A strategy to fight for birthright babies and selling baby parts at the same time is not going to get votes except the ones they already have. Indeed, I am certain that defending either policy will lose votes irrespective of how much help Democrats get from the media. My guess is that they already wrote off funding Planned Parenthood if defending it runs into a minimum of resistance:

4 Ways the Senate Could End Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood
Kelsey Harkness
August 31, 2015

4 Ways Senate Could Defund Planned Parenthood​

Nevertheless, a supermajority in both chambers would be a great cushion no matter how the presidential election turns out.

Planned Parenthood may have not only lied to Congress about its fetal organ harvesting practices but altered records to hide illegally profiting off of human remains, according to new evidence submitted by the pro-life Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

CMP, the group that originally exposed the scandal in 2015, filed a motion with a federal judge in Oakland, California last week, the group announced on its website. The motion argues that the abortion giant and tissue procurement firm Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) gave congressional investigators invoices that were purportedly of the same set of invoices, but featured conflicting details.

“[T]he revenue totals and procurement totals, when added up based on the invoices produced by ABR and Plaintiff PPPSW [Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest], do not match the totals that PPPSW reported to the Select Investigative Panel for fiscal year 2015,” the motion reads. “However the ABR fetal tissue invoices for July 2014 to December 2014 alone—half of fiscal year 2015—show revenues of $21,120 from ABR for 352 fetal tissue donations.”

“It is unclear to Defendants why the invoices are not identical, or why the numbers do not add up, but it is perfectly possible that the invoices were subject to tampering and someone falsely reported information to Congress,” the motion argues. “Thus, it is critical that Defendants obtain access to third-party documents to verify that Plaintiffs are not producing fabricated evidence.”

CMP wants Judge Donna Ryu to compel Planned Parenthood and ABR to produce their original records of the transfers. Federal law allows human tissue sales to reimburse providers for expenses, but forbids profiting off of human organs, body parts, or other tissue.

“The glaring discrepancies in Planned Parenthood’s alleged documentation of their baby body parts revenues call into question every statement Planned Parenthood has ever made in defense of their abortion harvesting programs,” CMP founder David Daleiden said. “This would not be the first time Planned Parenthood has apparently doctored critical evidence about their own wrongdoing.”

“As the U.S. Department of Justice continues to follow up on the criminal referrals for Planned Parenthood and ABR,” he continued, “it is imperative for prosecutors to seize the original financial records from Planned Parenthood and their accomplices immediately, so these depraved enterprises cannot continue to cover up their criminal sale of baby body parts.”

CMP’s undercover videos, made primarily by investigators posing as representatives of a tissue procurement company, showed Planned Parenthood personnel making multiple references to illegal practices, including a desire for illegal profits, performing federally-prohibited partial-birth abortions, and altering abortion procedures in order to procure intact organs.

Figures from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) were also caught on tape discussing their business with callous, shocking language, such as admissions that abortion is “killing,” complaints about how “difficult” it is to tear fetuses apart, and references to “heads that get stuck that we can’t get out.”

The abortion industry has taken Daleiden and CMP to court in an attempt to suppress the release of additional videos, which the pro-life group has forcefully resisted. Most recently, CMP called out the Trump administration for contracting with ABR to acquire tissue from aborted babies for medical research. The administration canceled that contract, but concern remains over others.

Several state-level investigations found no evidence of the abortion giant’s guilt, though neither the Obama administration nor the state of California (where most of the incriminating footage was captured) ever investigated. The Trump Justice Department saw fit to open an investigation into the matter in 2017, but has not updated the public on its findings since.