Small Guns — Big Military

Discussion in 'Military' started by Flanders, Jul 5, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    If you are looking for a bumper sticker explaining the most important issue in the presidential race this thread is not for you.

    Let’s get the media out of the way up-front.

    Neither ratifying the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) nor ratifying the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) will get the coverage they deserve. If the MSM gives them any coverage it will be “fair and balanced” —— meaning the media supports ratification of both treaties. No surprise there since the LOST gives the United Nations the taxing authority it has long sought.

    I do not know how taxing authority will be incorporated into the final draft of the ATT but I’ll wager that it will be there:


    I’ve covered the LOST extensively over the years. Briefly stated this time around —— Democrats will try and ratify the LOST after the election and before January 3, 2013. John Kerry is leading the fight in the Senate to ratify. So far, only 27 Republicans said they will not ratify. Thirty-four votes are needed to stop ratification. All things considered, Democrats and RINO are much closer to ratifying than opponents are to stopping ratification.

    I also posted numerous messages and articles opposing the ATT. That treaty takes control of Americans on a more personal level than does the LOST. That’s why I am convinced Democrats and RINO will also try to ratify the ATT before they lose the White House and the Senate. They will never again get the chance to ratify two anti-America treaties in one lame-duck session of Congress and they know it.

    NOTE: From the UN’s perspective ratifying the LOST automatically gets the support of environmental frauds and freakazoids. Not so with the ATT. No matter how UN hustlers spin it they cannot connect environmental claptrap to abolishing the Second Amendment; hence, Democrats and RINO cannot hide behind the environment. That is the only advantage I can see in the coming fight to stop ratification.

    If you like knowing what you are voting on watch these two videos as a preface to understanding the issue:


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTMksYEz7TU&feature=player_embedded]Marxism in America - Lt. Gen. Ret. W. G. Jerry Boykin Video - YouTube[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=player_embedded]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]

    Few Americans decide who to vote against based on UN treaties. Most Americans do not know how Senate candidates stand on any UN treaty. Should Democrats manage to hang onto the Senate they will call their victories a mandate to ratify United Nations treaties before Hussein’s leaves.

    A year ago:


    Majority of Senate Opposes U.N. Gun Control Efforts
    Submitted by NRA on Jul 24, 2011

    Majority of Senate Opposes U.N. Gun Control Efforts

    A majority of senators —— certainly 34 —— still feel the same way as far as I know.

    A few days ago:


    So why in hell is Hussein & Company moving ahead as though they have the votes to ratify?:

    The only thing I can figure is that Hussein will sign it in attempt to bypass ratification:

    Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty
    Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom
    Published: 15 hours ago
    by JACK MINOR

    Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty

    There is no doubt that Hussein will order his bureaucracies to give the UN everything it asks for. And do not forget that Hussein gave INTERPOL the authority to operate in this country —— and operate with diplomatic immunity —— should federal agencies balk at complying.

    More importantly, the way a majority of Supreme Court justices view the Constitution there is every indication they will rule Hussein’s signature on the ATT carries as much legitimacy as does ratification.

    In closing, let me remind everyone that disarming the American people increases the effectiveness of Hussein’s paramilitary force a thousand times; hence, my title. Without an armed citizenry able to defend itself Hussein’s military will carry the day easily. Add the media into the mix along with the “commander and chief’s” loyal officers who control the ranks, plus many in the highest level of government. Hell, they don’t need the millions in the parasite class who already believe guns are bad and the UN is good.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2012
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    I do not see the point in the State Department’s list of no-nos put out by Hillary Clinton’s playpen:

    State Dept. says UN arms treaty won't 'handicap' Second Amendment rights
    By Julian Pecquet - 07/06/12 04:23 PM ET

    State Dept. says UN arms treaty won't 'handicap' Second Amendment rights - The Hill's Global Affairs

    Clinton is for ratification as is every shareholder in Hussein & Company. The State Department list tells me the ATT crowd is getting nervous. The opposite of nervous is: Everyone in the Administration who is involved in finalizing the Small Arms Treaty is so stupid they do not know that the UN’s objective is to eliminate every item on the list. Even if the UN only gets one item it will serve as a wedge. Getting more than one item will be a rout.

    The final item on the list smells to high heaven:


    International body has to be doublespeak for the World Court. I cannot envision another UN entity with the power to adjudicate treaty enforcement. Once the World Court rules against the United States the federal government will enforce the ruling. Worse still, it smells like an end run around the Connally Reservation. Not an unreasonable assumption on my part considering there is a majority of Internationalists sitting on the Supreme Court just waiting to institute non-existent “International law.”

    Put Second Amendment and sovereignty issues aside and you will see that the State Department did NOT prohibit funding to enforce the ATT if it is ratified. Setting up, and funding, another UN agency to enforce the ATT is a foregone conclusion.

    Every UN treaty ever written includes a mechanism for handing the UN taxing authority over the American people. The ATT will be no different. And, once again, the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to rule for the American people and against United Nations taxation. Did not Chief Justice Roberts just say that every tax is constitutional? It is not much of a stretch for Internationalists to include every United Nations tax.

    Finally, regardless of how the ATT’s final draft reads there is no justification for gambling on interpretation. Hopefully, 34 senators will reject what the Administration is pulling with the ATT and refuse to ratify.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2012
  3. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    This is a back door to establish Law that otherwise would not pass through Congress, at least when viewed in the light of day. Using Treaties to circumvent Rights, Due Process, otherwise protected under the Constitution is, in truth, bottom feeding. Congress really has it's head up it's ass. A real Power Feeding Frenzy, yet the watch dogs remain mute.
     
  4. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    To Intense: Exactly so. Were they all looking out for this country the Administration would simply have told the United Nations “The Connally Reservation will apply in every instance regardless of how the treaty is ultimately worded.” Instead of laying it out in plain English, Hillary Clinton released a public relations list written to lull suspicious senators into trusting the UN.

    Note that with the help of Senate Democrats and the High Court every item on Clinton’s list can be manipulated to the UN’s advantage when six words in the hands of sovereignty-minded Americans were more than enough to thwart the UN’s nefarious scheme:


     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,766
    Thanks Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,936
    "Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”


    a. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

    b. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”
    From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.
     
  6. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    To PoliticalChic: Prior to the United Nations, all of the political thinking centered on treaties between individual nations. I am pretty sure none of the Founders considered treaties with a global organization.

    Do a little research on the forces working under the radar to repeal, or circumvent, the Connally Amendment in the UN Charter. Then ask yourself how much confidence you have in?:


    To PoliticalChic: Even with a sympathetic Supreme Court on their side, it is not hard to figure out why the global government crowd is working so hard to invalidate the Connally Amendment by UN treaty instead of achieving their objective with an Amendment to the Constitution?
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,766
    Thanks Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,936


    Perhaps you missed my point:


    1. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

    a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!
    b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!
    c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
    d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

    2. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
    Op.Cit.
     
  8. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    We are Never more than one Supreme Court decision away from losing it all. Regardless of what we proclaim. Don't kid yourself. Too many 5/4 splits. Who would have known that black and white, that principle was so divided, so much of the time. It is all arbitrary, nothing matters, but their will, the flavor of the day.
     
  9. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    If it has power over the Government Members, it has Power over the Armies those Governments control, by default. Why would it need an Army of it's own?
     
  10. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    To PoliticalChic: Possible but highly unlikely.

    I was exploring your reliance on appearances. I was trying to point out that the Constitution is under constant attack by the forces of creative interpretation. No attack is more relentless than the assault on America’s independence. I don’t want to stray into the immigration issue, but open-borders is a visible attack Americans see and understand, while UN treaties are more subtle, and infinitely more destructive in the long run.
     

Share This Page