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.

Do You Know Ed Mezvinsky?

He was born January 17, 1937, but you’re probably saying, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” and “Why should I care?”

Bear with me for a minute, as the answer has to do with Hillary Clinton’s run for the 2016 elections, and a great deal more.  The “more” part will boggle your mind.

Ed Mezvinsky is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States Ed MezvinskyHouse of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.  He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon.

He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.

He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years.

Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him.

In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.

In March 2001, Ed Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.  He had embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams (yes, he’s “that guy”).  He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.

After serving less than three-quarters of that time, he was released in April 2008.  He remains on federal probation.  To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

About now you are saying, “So what!”

Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky.  Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law.  Chelsea married his son.

Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5Chelsea Clinton million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion).

Has anyone heard any mention of any of this in any of the media?  No?

Gee…  I wonder why…

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over.  The liberal rags, however, are owned by the same corrupted cabal to which the Clintons, the Mezvinskys, and Soros belongs.

People are already talking about Hillary as our next President, and there is a distinct possibly Chelsea will run in the future.  The Hillary Clintonheadlines are already proclaiming, “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms.”

Apparently, the cycle of the rich and corrupt never ends.

The Democrat’s ongoing scheme is simple:  Promise anything to the masses in order to keep being reelected, then abuse the power of their office to line their own pockets, the pockets of their friends, and the pockets of people and companies who funded their campaigns — at your expense.

Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular, yet Democrats who are repeatedly suckered into voting for them keep wondering when they’re going to get their slice of the pie.

The answer is, “Never, so long as you keep allowing yourself to be suckered in to voting for Democrats.”  If the Democrats have you on a hook, and want to keep you on that hook, the only only solution is to get off the hook.  Stop voting Democrat.

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln

UN: Control Ebola or Face an “Unprecedented Situation”

As reported by Fox News on October 15, 2014, the United Nations has issued an ultimatum to the United States of America: Control Ebola or face an unprecedented situation.

What the UN means by “unprecedented situation” can be found on the UN website (http://un-influenza.org/?q=content/un-response),ebola in their response plan for the Avian Flu, under Objective 6: Continuity Under Pandemic Conditions: “Ensuring the continuity of essential social, economic and governance services, and effective implementation of humanitarian relief, under pandemic conditions.”

UN World Control

Reading between the lines, as well as observing their response throughout other nations, this includes the mandatory implementation of the UN’s other agendas, most notably confiscating all firearms for the “safety of all response workers.”

Similar indications can also be found on the World Health Organization’s website, in their Global Alert and Response (GAR) whopage (http://www.who.int/csr/en/): “Coordinate and support Member States for pandemic and seasonal influenza preparedness and response.”

Again, reading between the lines, the WHO brings the doctors, while it’s parent organization, the UN, brings the muscle.

This is further echoed in their August 28, 2014 Ebola Response Roadmap (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf?ua=1).

This document clearly states it’s purpose on page 5: “To assist governments and partners in the revision and resourcing of country-specific operational plans for Ebola response, and the coordination of international support for their full implementation.”

While they tie their “country-specific operational plans” to the “Ebola response,” the fact remains that an OPLAN is an OPLAN. It’s an Operational Plan. That’s military lingo for how an organization intendeds to accomplish its mission, and their specific intent for the United States of America comes through rather glaringly in Objective 2 on the same page:

2. To ensure emergency and immediate application of comprehensive Ebola response intervention in countries with an initial case(s) or with localized transmission.

The key activity of Objective 2: “Coordinate operations and information across all partners, and the information, security, finance and other relevant sectors.

The most alarming aspect of this document, however, involves their definition of “security:”

Security: where necessary, and particularly in areas of intense transmission and short term extraordinary containment measures, national/local authorities must plan for and deploy the security services necessary to ensure the physical security of Ebola facilities. National/local authorities must give particular attention to ensuring the security of the staff working in Ebola treatment centres, Ebola referral/isolation centres, laboratories and, if required, for teams working at the community level to conduct surveillance, contact tracing and safe burials.”

I have no problem with ensuring the security of Ebola treatment facilities. The question is, under Obama’s management, will it ever stop there? What legislation is in place to prevent overbearing law enforcement from pulling the same crap as the New Orleans Police Department pulled on American citizens immediately following Hurricane Katrina?

Since Day 1 at their training academies, American law enforcement officers have been taught to “control, control, control.” When you put them into a widespread situation, many of them are overwhelmed. They fall back on their training without any regard for the Constitutional implications that what they’re doing is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It might be suitable for a localized riot. It is NOT suitable for widespread chaos. This was most dramatically exhibited when SWAT teams busted down door after door after door in Boston immediately after the marathon bombing.

Did they respect our Constitutional rights? No. THEY BLEW RIGHT PAST THEM.

Again: What U.S. Federal Legislation is in place to ensure that NEVER happens again? What penalties are in place for local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as augmenting forces like the National Guard, to prevent them from crossing the line?

Comments within the document such as “repurpose existing programmes [sic] to support control efforts” with respect to “security” indicate they have ZERO intention of respecting our Constitution.

un gun controlWhat’s next?  The widespread confiscation of firearms “for your safety?”

Here’s a thought: Instead of assuming Americans are idiots, let’s try another route: Education. Let Americans do what we do best: Control ourselves.

In 2012, immediately following the Mountain Shadows flare-up of the Waldo Canyon fire, I and all other residents of my apartment complex were denied access to our domiciles for five full days, despite the fact that residents in homes on either side of us were allowed to return after just TWO days. We were told it was for our “safety,” despite the fact we were no less safe than those homeowners.

THAT CRAP HAS GOT TO STOP.

Again, Congressman Lamborn: What legislation, specifically, do you have in place to ensure these rampant denials of our Constitutional rights NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN?

With few exceptions, We the People are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves. We’re well aware of the risks to both ourselves and others, regardless of what Obama is saying to the contrary.

All we need are clear and unambiguous guidelines. We don’t Obama lying to us in pathetic and misinformative attempts to calm our nerves. Older generations grew up during the Cold War. Younger generations watch The Walking Dead every week. Let’s get real!

As a retired USAF Officer, I remain well-trained in CBRNE operations. Most of my neighbors do not have my training, but given the fact this is a military town, there are a LOT of us scattered throughout the community who do.

Even those who are untrained, however, know the risks. If they’re told to limit travel for food and work, use hand sanitizer or wear and discard gloves, keep their shoes in the garage, and wipe down all doorknobs and other touched surfaces with a soap/water/bleach solution, I’m pretty darn sure they can handle that!

I can’t help but wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

By refusing to close our borders and by bringing in infected individuals, Obama is INVITING a UN takeover of our country. He’s long been looking for a way to either ditch or circumvent our Constitution, and I believe he may very well have found it.

UNLESS, of course, laws exist which clearly limit the scope of his many executive orders, most of which were drafted during his first term, yet clearly targeted to give him absolute dictatorial authority over our nation in times of crises — whether those crises were unavoidable, or, as many of us believe, manufactured by Obama himself.

On October 15, Dr. Ben Carson said, “We’ve known for a long time that [Ebola] has this kind of potential. That’s the reason that several weeks ago I said it was a real mistake to bring infected people in to this country in any way.”

Indeed it was. Yet Obama continues to allow it.

My question to you, Sir, is WHY?

Sincerely…

On Suicide

suicide9073.39744. That’s NOT how many people take their own lives every year throughout the world. It’s actually slightly more than 800,000, or 1 on every 9073.39744 people. Call it 1 in 9,100 people.

“We know what works,” said Dr. Shekhar Saxena, the WHO’s mental health director. “Now is the time to act.”

“The report stated that the most common methods of suicide globally were pesticide [paraquat] poisoning — particularly in rural areas — hanging and firearms.”

They had me going there, for a minute. Then I read this: “Evidence had shown that restricting access to these methods can could help reduce the number of deaths.”

WRONG. In fact, Harvard researches Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser asked this very question in their study, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”suicide

Their conclusion: “restricting paraquat will not improve the lives of these poor women. It will only reorient them towards hanging, drowning, or some other means of suicide.”

So why does the World Health Organization keep saying that which they know is not true? The answer is found on WHO’s own website, in the first sentence of their About section: “WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system.”

Ah… The gun-grabbing United Nations, in front of whose New York Headquarters stands a giant statue of a pistol with its barrel tied in a knot.

Ok. Now this makes a lot more sense.

Bottom line, people, there is help, but taking away one means doesn’t solve anything, if you fail to address the root cause. The suicideproblem has to do with how they feel about the condition of their lives.  Most feel like their lives are hopeless and that the people around them don’t really care. Saying “I care” won’t convince them, either. It’s a tough situation, but there is hope. It just takes time. In the meantime, they need our love, understanding, and support.

THAT’S what works, Dr. Shekhar Saxena. Not your unscientific, gun-grabbing agenda spewed forth from your parent organization.

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″ /]

Letter to Dr. Ted R. Bromund

Dear Dr. Bromund:

I read with interest your article, published today, entitled “UN Arms Treaty will be menace to US for years to come.”

As one who has taken an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” I noted with dismay your opinion that there’s some kind of “loophole” with respect to being bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”  This line of thought is in error.  While we may voluntarily choose to adhere to a treaty after it’s been signed, our nation is under no international or legal obligation to do so, particularly if the treaty was signed in violation of the Constitution’s requirements for treaties.

Here’s why:

1)  Our Constitution is very simple, straightforward, and has been published worldwide since before the ink dried on the last signature.  Each and every nation around the world, as well as various bodies of international cooperation, such as the United Nations, are not only privy to it, but employ experts who’re able to inform the organization as to exactly what each and every provision really means.

2)  The part about Senatorial “advice and consent” isn’t “commonly said.”  It is LAW.  In fact, it’s Constitutional law, the Supreme Law of the Land.” (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution)  “[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.”  (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; emphasis mine).

Put simply, no President, nor any duly appointed representative, can make or sign a legally binding treaty without concurrence of two thirds of the Senate.  Doing so is a direct and heinous violation of the Constitution, and the trust as well as representational authority of the American People.  In fact, Kerry’s signing of the U.S. Arms Treaty without such concurrence is an impeachable offense, not only for Kerry, but for Obama as well, for Obama directed him to do so.

3)  Any law violating a higher law is null and void.  That’s the way our system of justice, based on English Law, has been practiced, and here in America, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  There is no higher law.  This legal precept has been upheld in numerous federal court decisions and several Supreme Court decisions.  Some people falsely believe that people have to follow all laws unless and until they’re proven un-Constitutional.

The courts have repeatedly ruled otherwise, even to the point of holding law enforcement agencies, municipalities, states, and even the federal government both civilly and criminally liable for having passed or trying to enforce an un-Constitutional law.

In fact, no U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer is under any obligation whatsoever to either follow or enforce a law which violates the Constitution.  The same goes for executive orders, whether they’re issued by the President of the United States or the town mayor.  Congress makes law, not the President.  State legislatures make law, not the Governor.  City/Town councils make law, not the mayor/administrator.  Contrary to popular misconception, his executive orders do NOT “carry the weight of law,” unless they’re empowered by a Constitutionally-abiding piece of legislation authorizing them in the first place AND the executive orders are themselves fully commensurate with all provisions of the Constitution and its 27 Amendments.  If Obama’s executive orders fail either of these tests, they are null and void, unenforceable under our system of justice.

Furthermore, every U.S. citizen, military officer, law enforcement officer, and civil officer, at local, state, and federal levels, every person who has ever taken an oath of office to support and defend our Constitution has a DUTY to stand firm against ANY measure from on high, regardless of its source, which violates the Constitution.

The oath of office was implemented as one of the checks and balances in our nation, so that no individual in any position of authority would ever allow their loyalty to their superior at any level to eclipse that of their loyalty to the nation itself.  This single measure has kept more tyrannical and freedom-hating legislation in check than any other.  The only time it doesn’t work is when those who’ve been elected or appointed to offices of public trust renege on their oaths of office.  In the military, that can result in a courts martial.  Sadly, when enough public officials refuse to adhere to their oaths of office, it corrupts the entire system, because they will vote along party lines instead of their sworn oath to the country.

The Constitution, Dr. Bromund, is more than the Supreme Law of the Land.  It’s our nation’s life blood.  When the citizens and leaders of our nation adhere to the Constitution, our nation stands.  When they depart from it, our nation falls, and if they do so willingly or knowingly, it’s “adhering to their Enemies,” and therefore treason. (Article III, Section 3)

Sincerely…

PS:  Link to the Official Transcript of the U.S. Constitution at the Library of Congress:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

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!