UN Arms Trade Treaty

A lot of fear-mongers are claiming the UN Arms Trade Treaty “takes effect” today (Christmas Eve).  In fact, this “treaty” has UN Arms Trade Treatyabsolutely zero effect on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s why:

1.  Our Constitution mandates treaties adhere to a simple yet rigorous legislative and governmental process.  No matter who in our government signs a treaty, if the treaty didn’t go through the appropriate review and approval process, it is NOT binding in any way shape, fashion, or form.

2.  Our nation remains sovereign.  No treaty may usurp any portion of our Constitution without a Constitutional amendment to that effect.  Thus, even if a treaty were to go through the appropriate review and approval process, if that treaty violates the Constitution, the treaty remains null and void.

Finding evidence which supports these claims is both simple and straightforward.  In fact, we need look no further than the Constitution itself.

The Treaty Review and Ratification Process

Article. II. Section 2. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which the President can make a treaty:

“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…”

Did the President seek and obtain both the advice and the consent of the Senate?  Did two-thirds of the Senate concur?  Both of UN Arms Trade Treatythese requirements must be present before the President or his designee can legally sign a treaty.  On the day John Kerry signed this treaty, the Senate had been consulted, and their advice was a big fat “NO,” with a majority voting in opposition to the treaty.  Thus, neither Kerry nor Obama had obtained the consent of the Senate.  Furthermore, not only did two-thirds of the Senators present not concur, the majority of the Senators vehemently opposed the treaty.

In addition, there is serious doubt among Constitutional scholars that the President can appoint anyone to sign a treaty on his UN Arms Trade Treatybehalf without express, written authorization to do so.  General Douglas MacArthur had such authorization.  On September 2, 1945, MacArthur accepted the formal Japanese surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri, thus ending hostilities in World War II.  John Kerry most certainly did not have any such authorization.

Regardless, neither Obama nor Kerry had either the consent or the a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate.  Therefore, Kerry’s signature on the treaty is invalid, null and void, and without any lawful authority or substance.

The Amendment Proposal and Ratification Process

Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which Amendments are proposed and ratified:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Put simply, this clause requires the following for all Amendments to the Constitution:

1.  Two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)

2.  Ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or three-quarters of a Constitutional Convention).

3.  All Amendments are valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution.

Thus, even if Obama and Kerry had the advice and consent, along with a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, the treaty would still be invalid simply because it violates our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  As the Second Amendment clearly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The UN Arms Trade Treaty infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It is therefore Constitutionally null and void.

The key thing to remember here is to never allow anyone to tell you otherwise.  When the entire populace of the United States of America knows its Constitution and the rights and freedoms respected and protected therein, no amount of government chicanery can take that away from them.

Know your rights!  Stand up for them, not merely often, but always!

It’s called FREEDOM, people, and it is very, very good.

Commentary on the Las Vegas Shootings

While indeed tragic, this incident was incredibly and exceptionally rare. Blaming this on the political right wing, however, is like blaming the Manson murders on California. Those of us leaning to the right absolutely abhor criminal activity. Manson was a psycho. These perps were psychos. They are not representative of the political right in any shape, form, or fashion, and any insinuation to the contrary is utterly brain dead, not to mention irresponsible and reckless. Furthermore, categorizing the right as “anti-government” is also completely insane. We love the government, provided the government plays by the rules. Those rules are delineated in our U.S. Constitution and its amendments, and are designed for our protection against an overbearing and abusive government.  When politicians refuse to play by the rules, we exercise our Constitutional authority and vote them out of office. It’s just that simple.

Same thing goes for law enforcement. The vast majority of law enforcement officers play by the rules. Unfortunately, as clearly evidenced by hundreds of YouTube videos, some do not. Those who don’t follow the rules are not “the law.” They are BREAKING the law, trampling on both your and my Constitutional rights and freedoms in the process. Such “bad cops” absolutely MUST be suspended, investigated, and probably fired by their organizations, as they represent a threat to society. When they break the rules, they’re no longer “serving and protecting,” but “violating and abusing.”  If the departments can’t police their own, then we vote out the mayor and members of the town or city council — whoever is covering up for bad cops.  If the situation warrants, we sue, in the hopes that a monetary settlement, combined with the judge’s commentary, will remind the city and its citizens what is considered acceptable by society, and what is not.

Again, this tragic event underscore the need for educating the public as to what conservatives REALLY believe. You’ll find no better summary than Bill Whittle’s multi-part series entitled, amazingly enough, “What We Believe.” You can watch either in parts, or in one full episode, below:

[embedplusvideo height=”332″ width=”442″ editlink=”http://bit.ly/1nBix2l” standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Z0vh-TZ6SNg?fs=1″ vars=”ytid=Z0vh-TZ6SNg&width=442&height=332&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep3546″ /]

Harry Reid (and other Dems) on Gun Control

Harry Reid (Dem-S-Nev) says, “We do need to put in place legislation that helps prevent these deranged, these weird, these evil people who carry out such savage acts of violence. Background checks so that people who are criminals, who are deranged can’t buy a gun.”

I see several glaring problems with this:

1. Most psychologists will undoubtedly lean towards identifying anyone who is a “potential danger to themselves or others” as a candidate for being denied their right to keep and bear arms. The problem is, the vast majority of those “potentials,” as in more than 99% of them, would never go on a mass shooting spree.

2. Harry Reid’s categories are far too broad, not to mention nebulous. The “criminal” category isn’t well-defined, either.  The term “convicted criminal” would be more appropriate.  Even so, there are questions as to whether Constitutional rights should be restored when convicts become ex-cons.  If they’ve paid their debt to society…

3. It gets into “pre-crime,” violating the Constitutional rights of Americans without any Constitutionally-acceptable reason.

4.  As for the rest of the categories, they clearly include room for Harry Reidpoliticians to add anyone and everyone who ever opposed a political party or supported the U.S. Constitution, including the gentleman pictured below. That’s just wrong.

Bottom Line: You do NOT protect Americans by taking away their right to defend themselves. Our Founding Fathers got it right when they created in our Second Amendment the blanket protection, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What Harry Reid and others propose is a MASSIVE infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and raises serious questions as to his real motives.

Colorado Apartment Building VIOLATES Tenants Constitutional Rights

Article.

Video.

This is NOT legal under either Colorado State Law (Colorado Revised Statutes) or U.S. Federal law. In fact, it violates several provisions of various laws.

Specifically, landlords in Colorado can only render contracts null and void based on items which are themselves prohibited by law, such as illegal drugs. They can place reasonable restrictions on other items such as pets and satellite dishes, as those items can result in additional expenses for the landlord and change the overall ambiance of the complex.  The U.S. Constitution, however, expressly forbids authorities from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  To wit:  “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It doesn’t say “may not.”  It doesn’t say “should not.”  It says “shall not.” Furthermore, in District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the people to keep firearms in their homes.

All federal courts and the Supreme Court have already ruled that the lawful exercise of your right to keep and bear arms does NOT infringe on the rights of others. Specifically, they’ve said if the firearm is properly carried under state law i.e. you’re not brandishing it, then no one else’s rights are being violated. People do not have any right to be “free from seeing something they find either scary, alarming, or offensive.” This includes sayings on a t-shirt, the color of someone’s hair, or a firearm. The courts have ruled that the lawful carry of a firearm is not legal grounds for “alarm” any more that would be a picture of a spider on someone’s shirt.  If spiders offend, scare, or alarm others, that’s unfortunately, but the truth remains that the Constitutional rights of the people shall not be infringed.

The landlord has NO legal right or cause to evict, and inclusion of this restriction in the lease violates Colorado State law, Federal landlord/tenant/leasing laws, and the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution itself.

Finally, the “federal building” argument does not apply.  The only “federal building” exceptions involve buildings where the federal government provides services to the public at large. It does NOT extend to residential areas. Here’s why: The area inside the resident’s home is protected under Supreme Court decisions Heller and McDonald. Furthermore, the common-use areas enjoyed by all the tenants are legally governed under “joint tenancy” laws. Even though the property may be owned by a landlord, that doesn’t give the landlord the right to violate the Constitutional rights of the individuals who live there, regardless of whether the landlord is Joe Citizen or Uncle Sam. The tenants retain the same rights in “joint tenancy” areas as they would in the front yards of homeowners, with few exceptions. One such exception is that they cannot plant their own flowers or erect structures. They can, however, set up a beach chair on the grass and lay out in the sun. Properly covered, of course.  If the keeping and bearing of arms is allowed by law, as it is in this case, the building’s owners can NOT violate those rights.

UPDATE 1:  I sent this layman’s brief to Will Ripley of 9News and others in the local politburo.  Don’t know how much my assessment helped, but I’m happy if it helped.

UPDATE 2:  We WON!  Link.  The Douglas County Housing Partnership, who has authority to overturn Ross Management’s actions, said:  “This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual’s rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few.”  A spokesperson for the Denver Housing Authority said, “It’s unconstitutional to prohibit the legal possession of a gun or a firearm on public housing property.”

On an interesting side note, the owners of Ross Management have given $9,000 to Democrats.  Zip to any other political party.  Naturally, this explains a lot.

Tyranny: Obama Signs Gun Control Treaty

Tyranny is raising its head yet again in the Obama administration, as well as in Congress.

Obama can sign the International Gun Control Treaty on Monday, June 3, 2013 if he wants to, but it is illegal for him to do so.  Furthermore, another forty-six U.S. Senators support subjugating our Constitution under the authority of the United Nations.

This is tyranny.  It is also patently un-Constitutional.

Obama cannot legally sign the treaty unless two, and only two, concurrent exceptions are in existence, simultaneously:

– Only upon the Advice and Consent of the Senate

– Two-thirds of the Senate must approve

Source: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

For Obama to even sign the treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of their members, is a violation of Constitutional law.  This provision exists to prevent any single individual, not merely including the President, but especially the President, from obligating the entire country to be bound to treaty, unless it is within the will of the People for him to do so, as expressed through their representatives in Congress.

Countless surveys have proven it is NOT within the will of the People to enter into an International Gun Control Treaty, much less gun control at all.  Even the Democrat-controlled Senate flat-out rejected Obama’s post-Sandy Hook gun-control measures.  You think two-thirds of them will support this?  Heck no!  They will not, hence Obama’s illegal end-run around Congress.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to declare any and all treaties un-Constitutional, either by content of the treaty (infringement on the right to keep and bear arms), or by violation of procedure (without the Senate’s advice, consent, and 2/3 approval):

Source: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…” – U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Obama's Illegal Treaty
The Face of Tyranny

It would be nice, however, and very helpful, if Congress passed a public resolution reaffirming the Constitution’s mandates concerning treaties.  The public has a right to know that their government will not tolerate tyranny, rogue elements such as Obama going off half-cocked and fully illegal, regardless of his reasoning or justifications.  Such authority is expressly denied by our Constitution in order to prevent tyranny in our country.  The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of her amendments exist first and foremost to protect us from precisely the sort of tyrannical action Obama promises to commit on Monday, June 3, 2013.

The President, Congress, the Supreme Court, indeed the entire country are all bound by the Constitution. It’s not a “guide.” The President has no option to do an end run around Congress, regardless of how urgent or dire he deems a situation. Our Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” Violating it is a misdemeanor, at best. Violations of certain rights are often considered felonies.

“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – U.S. Constitution, Article VI

Finally, Congress has the power to impeach Obama should he violate these provisions:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4

The House files impeachment charges against the President: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section II

The Senate tries impeachments of the President, and may convict on 2/3 vote: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3

The consequences of being convicted of impeachment are, at the very least, removal from office, but may be far more severe: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3

tyranny
The Glory of our Nation

Regardless of Obama’s justification or reasoning, his signing the treaty also violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constition, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The treaty is an infringement.  As such, even if he did have 2/3 approval of the Senate, it would still be un-Constitutional!

There is no pardon for tyranny, and the President cannot pardon himself from impeachment! “[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

We are all bound by both duty and honor to fight Obama’s tyranny!

U.S. Gun Confiscation Approaching Fast

Article:  California Inching Closer to Gun Confiscation Bill.

This isn’t gun control.  It’s gun confiscation.  It’s Feinstein’s revenge, following Congress’ rejection of the pet gun control bills she’s been working on for more than twenty years.  Feinstein is violating her oath of office, back-dooring this through her comrades in Sacramento, hoping that if California leaps over the point of no return, that other states will follow.

Feinstein is apparently unaware that many states have already passed legislation which strengthens gun rights.  Her legislation is likely to do little more than dramatically increase crime while creating yet another point of contention towards some future civil war.

The Senselessness Behind How We Treat Our Service Members

“The few of us who are brave enough to face the horrors of war while protecting our rights and freedoms should NEVER have to worry about their rights and freedoms being denied them when they return.” – Anon

The weight of the world - and hope crushed.
The weight of the world – and hope crushed.

Soldiers often feel the weight of the world on their shoulders as they fight our war.  Can you imagine how they must feel as they’re told, “we trusted you with these rights and freedoms before you left.  Now that you’ve proven you’re worthy, we’re going to take those rights and freedoms away from you when you return.”

This is the madness our soldiers face.  Not from the enemy.  Not from within themselves.  But from elitist politicians who’ve never been to war, never seen war, yet ask our young ones to go fight their battles for them, only to pull the rug out from underneath them when they return.

They fight for the rights of all American, only to come home and discover they now have to fight for their own rights, as well.  No one was watching their back.  While they were fighting on foreign fronts, under unimaginable conditions and against formidable enemies, we were under conditions of 68-72 deg F, with 30-45% relative humidity.  The only enemies we faced back here were decisions about whether or not we were going to watch a sitcom or a horror movie.  The thought of writing our Congressman in support of our service members or their rights never even crossed our minds.