web analytics

Really?

By Patrick Van Roy On July 16th, 2012

This is what the She-Beast is up to, besides being pelted with Tomatoes.

Clinton waives conditions placed by Congress on the 1.3 billion dollars of aid – requiring Egypt to meet certain democratic reforms before being granted the funds.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the green light Friday for U.S. military aid to Egypt despite concerns that Cairo was not meeting goals in its democratic transition.

Clinton waived conditions placed by Congress on the 1.3 billion dollars of aid – requiring Egypt to meet certain democratic reforms before being granted the funds – saying the move was in the United States’ national interest.

“These decisions reflect America’s over-arching goal: to maintain our strategic partnership with an Egypt made stronger and more stable by a successful transition to democracy,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

Now she does these actions on behalf of the American Public at the Orders of President Obama. The other issue is even more troublesome.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which she will sign on Friday the 27th is a direct assault on the American Public and the U.S, Constitution. Now there are not enough votes in the Senate to Ratify it, but it doesn’t have to be ratified, to be implemented. If a Treaty is signed by the Secretary of State, and not renounced by the President, and not voted on by the Senate IT BECOMES THE LAW.

On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

The ATT will set up a global body which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms.

If after she signs this Treaty Obama is reelected there will be people coming door to door for our guns. There will be blood. Do not underestimate the venom and violence that the American Public will react with. I posted a clip of what the head of the NRA said to the U.N. and he represents the sane gun owners.

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Whose original intent was to ensure our Freedom against the Tyranny of the State. The PEOPLE shall be allowed to own and carry their guns so that if the POLITICIANS become a threat to our FREEDOMS the People can form Militias and over throw the Government by force if necessary. It has nothing to do with Hunters….

32 Responses to “Really?”

  1. “If a Treaty is signed by the Secretary of State, and not renounced by the President, and not voted on by the Senate IT BECOMES THE LAW.”

    How does that work? Only Congress is vested with legislative power.

    Even if Congress or some finagling has delegated some power to make treaties to the Executive, that’s still a delegation of Congressional authority only, and as we know, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    That’s not a conditional right. There’s no caveat there. It’s a black and white recognition of prior rights. Neither Congress nor the Executive can extinguish that right because it is not theirs to extinguish.

  2. Troll – seek professional help.

  3. Pete – it is a false claim and has been false for a while. Gun fetish aside, it is continued silliness.

  4. the President can enter us into treaties it is one of his only real powers.
    from Article II

    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;

    However here is the problem

    An early draft of the Constitution would have given the power to make treaties to the Senate alone, but that was changed with the creation of the presidency. It is the sole responsibility of the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations, but such treaties do not become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate. They must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present (assuming a quorum).

    At the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson persuaded other nations to agree to his Fourteen Points—a comprehensive plan for peace that included the creation of a League of Nations. The Senate failed to approve the treaty, however, and many historians believe this action may have contributed to World War II.

    To avoid conflict with the Senate, presidents have increasingly relied upon executive agreements to achieve foreign policy goals. These agreements with other nations do not require the approval of the Senate, but their distinction from treaties has not been clearly established.

    Some examples of executive agreements include the 1945 Yalta agreement to divide Germany among the Allied nations, and the 1980 agreement with Iran to end the hostage crisis.

    Another unclear area is the extent to which a president can reinterpret or refuse to enforce a treaty. For example, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter terminated a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan in order to recognize the People’s Republic of China. Senator Barry Goldwater contested that decision in federal court, but the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits of the issue.

    If hillary signs this and it is not brought to a vote by the Senate which Harry Reid has already said he won’t bring it up. It falls as an agreement and stands above our constitution with the same weight as a Treaty due to the precedent set by the commie Woody Wilson

    It would continue as the law of the land until Either the President Renounces it, or the Congress brings it to vote on the Floor and denies it.

    This is not something new, this is a subversion of the Constitution set in place by the “progressives” 100 years ago.

  5. No.

  6. you calling me a liar Mahons?

    I challenge you Mr Lawyer point out where I am Lying. Put up the precedents to back your statement up.

    I have put up the precedent that both my statement, and the Obama Administration is using.

    If I am wrong then why is Hillary signing it?

    You know you want to point at me and call me a liar, but you can’t back your statement up. You do this at least once a month. You have never to date proven a single one of your accusations.

    You don’t even try. Your silence and lack of contrary evidence does not make your position valid.

    You refuse to justify your support for this President, and you will refuse to defend your position here. I hope you argue cases with more vim and vigor than you show here.

  7. Yes. Although your frequency at falsehood is greater than once a month.

  8. so your admitting then that you can’t back your point up with fact or precedent.

    what a pathetic little man you are. You can call me a liar, but you can’t even muster a case to defend your statements… sad

  9. No, I am calling you unworthy of debate. You don’t offer an argument based on facts. If you offer factual arguments I’ll either agree or disagree with you. But when you merely offer falsehoods and bombastic silliness, I’ll call you out for what you’ve alleged.

  10. Then why is Hillary signing the Treaty?

    What is your evidence that I am wrong? I posted the precedent. Just saying I’m a Liar is not a case counselor.

    Admit it you have no clue. You assume I’m crazy yet I put up the evedense to back my claim up. Where is yours?

    It’s not that I’m unworthy of debate, it’s simply a matter of the fact that you don’t know shit. Not only are you uninformed your unwilling to even see if your “feelings” can be backed up with anything of substance rather than your emotions.

    Here is Article II of Constitution. it is an interactive format click on the line about treaties and the precedent I put up will come up in the box below.

    http://72.32.50.200/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=069&const=02_art_02

    Instead of your petty little bullshit engage in a real exchange for a change. Show the rest of the clowns on this site how two people with opposing views discuss things in this country.

    or are you like the man you support just hot air and falsehoods

  11. No case has to be made against you, your falsehoods are self-evident. You are not up to real discussion. Your name-calling and stupidity are legend here. And your crybaby autobiographical two minute goodbyes as well. If you offer real arguments on an issue, you’ll get respectful debate. Until then.

  12. bullshit.

    You have no clue on the topic, and no desire or ability to present your case,

    If I am wrong and so stupid and silly explain why Hillary is signing the Treaty.

    You can’t just like you can’t engage with me on reasonable level.

    I may be bombastic and I do enjoy the theater that this site offers.

    However Because of your vocation I have expected you to be able to engage in a decent exchange, I have offered you on numerous occasions the chance to do so. I have done it once again here.

    Yet you are unwilling or more honestly unable to do so.

    You call me a liar, but have never proven me to have lied. You say my position is nonsense even though I put the evidence to back it it up in the record. Where is yours? If I am such a fool and a liar it should be easy to demonstrate it, Yet you can’t and even better refuse to try by saying I’m the fool.

    Go chase an ambulance, leave the politics to those that have the fortitude to do the research. You offer nothing to the conversation and pat yourself on the back for it.

    I pity you

  13. Yeah I’m the jerk and your the intellectual elite, keep telling yourself that.

  14. You see folks, this thread offers a perfect example of what passes for an exchange from the left.

    No evidence, no counter argument why the stated position is wrong. Just attack the person putting up the uncomfortable truth with personal attacks.

    Thank you Mahons for the black and white demonstration of why your side is unworthy and untrustworthy to lead.

  15. Troll

    You are an idiot if you think anything signed by anyone can abridge your constitution

    It is codified and the primary document of your country and can not be changed by any foreign power

    no matter how badly the nra wants to sell memberships or how loudly mark levin does your thinking for you

  16. Troll, not treaty, no foreign agreement and no executive agreement can remove rights granted to Americans by the US Constitution. There was a relatively large legal battle in the 50s over it – Reid v. Covert.

  17. In the ‘Land of the free’ are you absolutely 100% sure, the government do not have the power to disarm the general public?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

  18. What about this ..

    The National Defense Authorization Act

    Does that allow the government to disarm Americans?

    I think it does.

  19. lets look at what the constitution has to say on the subject

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Now lets look at how it has been used with a legal precedent.
    This provision in Article VI is known as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes the Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.

    Treaties must comply with the Constitution. However, the treatymaking power of the U.S. government is broader than the lawmaking power of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. Holland (1920) that pursuant to a treaty with Great Britain, the United States could regulate the hunting of migratory birds, even though Congress had no independent authority to pass such legislation.

    Treaties become the Supreme Law of the Land and must be upheld by Judges and Law Enforcement. This is not the Only Bullshit Treaty that has been brought up this year.

    Just yesterday Harry Reid was issued a letter that 34 Senators have Signed a Pledge to vote against the Law of the Sea Treaty because it would turn our sovereignty over to the UN.

    Now When the Law of the Sea Treaty was created the US didn’t sign it. Because of it’s effect on our sovereignty. The Senate however has picked it up to try to get it passed twice now. John (I served in Vietnam Kerry) was trying to push it out of Committee so that it could be voted on and then Signed by the President during the Lame Duck Session.

    Treaties are very dangerous because of the fact that they can supersede our Constitution it is why there is supposed to be a 2/3rds of the Senate Ratification process.

    But because of what Woodrow Wilson did there is Legal Precedent to go around the Senate.

  20. Look first off you have to consider the actions of this administration. There have been at least 4 instances that this President has over stepped his political authority. He has even stated publicly “If Congress isn’t with me, I’ll go around them”.

    He has sold guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels for the sole reason that they would show up at crime scenes and he would be able to push for stronger gun controls. Look at his voting record both in Illinois, and in the Senate. He is an anti-gun nut.

    Ask yourself if this treaty will carry no weight WHY is Hillary going to sign it?

    Just because the idea is outrageous it doesn’t mean it’s not true. These people are Ideologues, we have made the mistake of voting in a man that truly believes like a lot of you that America is the problem, That our founding fathers were a bunch of white slave holders and that old piece of paper called the constitution is crap.

    He has come out and said it on several occasions the constitution is bad law because it says what the government can’t do and not what it should do.

    He does not understand that was the whole purpose of the constitution, to restrain government.

  21. Protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution are not subject to treaties of any kind and that has already been established by the Supreme Court.

  22. allright Seamus you use a murder case where you are right the court ruled “In that Instance” that a treaty did not strip a citizen of their constitutional rights.

    it does not say that treaties of any kind don’t trump the constitution. The constitution itself say’s treaties become “The Supreme” Law of the land. It does stress “advise and consent” but as I pointed out Wilson set precedent to avoid “advise and consent”.

    So I ask once again Why is Hillary signing a treaty that clearly violates our constitution?

  23. Troll –

    “The constitution itself say’s treaties become “The Supreme” Law of the land.”

    But they must be signed and ratified in accordance with the law, and the law is clear and simple. Only the President may conclude treaties and 2/3s of the Senate must approve. There’s nothing else to it.

    If Wilson and the Supremes have got around it, then that at least proves the charge that the law no longer matters in Washington, only power. Literally, it is lawless as far as power can be unrestrained by man. But still, H. Clinton alone signing a treaty does not make it law because the law does not recognise her authority to do so.

    Treaties are inferior to the Constitution, which is the supreme law. The founders didn’t go to all that trouble to severely limit government and protect individual and state liberty, only to leave a backdoor through which the federal government could do whatever it liked.

  24. “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the green light Friday for U.S. military aid to Egypt despite concerns that Cairo was not meeting goals in its democratic transition.”

    The only democratic thing that has happened for Egypt was an election. The (secular) Egyptians may find that it will be the last democratic election for some time…

    “Nasser virtually died on the day his armies were defeated by the Israeli aggression in June 1967 in what the world and history now knows as the six-day war after which Israel occupied the Egyptian Sinai peninsula, the Jordanian west bank in Jordan and Palestine and the Golan heights in Syria. The MB and the Islamists viewed the Naksa as a divine warning for Arabs to get back on the righteous track and abide by the rule of Islam as they have been highly critical of Nasser’s socialist political system in Egypt.”

    source: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march272011/muslim-brotherhood-ae.php

  25. PM
    Wilson set precedent at the end of WWI to by pass the Senate, wilson is one of Obama’s models. I ask again why is Hillary signing the Treaty if this administration doesn’t expect to abide by it?

    Just Good PR, or have their actions to date shown a pattern of neglecting the letter of the law at every possible opportunity.

    You witness with your own eyes their actions, but because they are so outrageous you don’t believe the evidence in front of you.

    Such is the path of Tyranny

  26. My question is OK they sign the treaty. The Treaty mandates a census an inventory of every gun in the hands of the private citizenry.

    Are they stupid enough to actually try, and if so how long before someone gets shot?

  27. Lots of prople get shot every hour in NRA Occupied America

    But its OK, since guns keep us safe

  28. guns are inanimate objects, Phantom. they don’t sit up and shoot people. if you leave them alone, they just lie there.

  29. Well I guess there goes some of the ” Fast and Furious ” accusation

    Since guns are inanimate objects

  30. People kill people because it’s a trait in the genetic pool.

    Guns are tools nothing more.

    They can be used correctly and incorrectly. It’s why character matters. Those of poor character use them in a manner of someone with a poor character.

    Those people will always be of poor character and will always try to prey on others.

    The best defense against such people is a well armed population of people of character. People who understand a gun is a defensive tool to be used to protect oneself, not an offensive tool except in time of war.

  31. Except guns aren’t always in the hands of people of character.

  32. A big part of the population of America or anywhere else consists of the bad, the weak minded, the hot tempered and the paranoid. Some here hit 3 out of 4 and don’t belong within a country mile of a loaded weapon.