North Korea’s ICBM Test and Threat

On July 4, 2017, North Korea tested a missile which it claims to be its first intercontinental missile.  North Korea claimed, and Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary confirmed, the missile dubbed the Hwasong-14 ICBM flew for 40 minutes up to an altitude of 1,500 miles, well above the orbital altitude of the International Space Station.  A more depressed trajectory, this mid-range missile could reach Alaska.  They followed their test with threats of widespread destruction against the United States.   Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, declares that North Korea continues to “ignore the repeated warning from the international community.”

On July 5, 2017, Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, delivered the following speech to the United Nations:

Thank you, Mr. President.

To my friends on the Security Council, I must say that today is a dark day. It is a dark day because yesterday’s action by North Korea made the world a more dangerous place. Their illegal missile launch was not only dangerous, but reckless and irresponsible. It showed that North Korea does not want to be part of a peaceful world. They have cast a dark shadow of conflict on all nations that strive for peace.

Yesterday’s act came from the same vicious dictator who sent a young college student back home to his parents unresponsive and in a coma. For Americans, the true nature of the North Korean regime was painfully brought home with the images of two guards holding Otto Warmbier up as they transported him from a prison he should never have been in.

Otto Warmbier is but one person out of millions who have been killed, tortured or deprived of their human rights by the North Korean regime. To Americans, the death of one innocent person can be as powerful as the death of millions because all men and women are created in God’s image. Depravity toward one is a sure sign of willingness to do much more harm.

The nature of the North Korean regime is clear. Only the scale of the damage it does could become different. That’s why yesterday’s escalation is so alarming. If North Korea will treat an innocent young student the way it treated Otto Warmbier, we should not be surprised if it acts barbarically on a larger scale.

The United States does not seek conflict. In fact, we seek to avoid it. We seek only the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and an end to the threatening actions by North Korea. Regrettably, we’re witnessing just the opposite. Make no mistake, North Korea’s launch of an ICBM is a clear and sharp military escalation.

The North Korean regime openly states that its missiles are intended to deliver nuclear weapons to strike cities in the United States, South Korea and Japan. And now it has greater capacity to do so.

In truth, it is not only the United States and our allies that are threatened. North Korea’s destabilizing escalation is a threat to all nations in the region and beyond. Their actions are quickly closing off the possibility of a diplomatic solution.

The United States is prepared to use the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies. One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction. We have other methods of addressing those who threaten us and of addressing those who supply the threat.

We have great capabilities in the area of trade. President Trump has spoken repeatedly about this. I spoke with him at length about it this morning. There are countries that are allowing, even encouraging, trade with North Korea in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Such countries would also like to continue their trade — such countries would also like to continue their trade arrangements with the United States. That’s not going to happen.

Our attitude on trade changes when countries do not take international security threats seriously. Before the path to a peaceful solution is entirely closed, however, there remains more that the international community can and must do diplomatically and economically. In the coming days, we will bring before the Security Council a resolution that raises the international response in a way that is proportionate to North Korea’s new escalation.

I will not detail the resolution here today, but the options are all known to us. If we are unified, the international community can cut off the major sources of hard currency to the North Korean regime. We can restrict the flow of oil to their military and their weapons program. We can increase air and maritime restrictions. We can hole senior regime officials accountable.

The international community has spoken frequently against the illegal and dangerous actions of the North Korean regime. For many years, there have been numerous U.N. sanctions against North Korea, but they have been insufficient to get them to change their destructive course.

So in order to have an impact, in order to move North Korea off its military escalation, we must do more. We will not look exclusively at North Korea. We will look at any country that chooses to do business with this outlaw regime. We will not have patience for stalling or talking our way down to a watered-down resolution.

Yesterday’s ICBM escalation requires an escalated diplomatic and economic response. Time is short. Action is required. The world is on notice. If we act together, we can still prevent a catastrophe and we can rid the world of a grave threat. If we fail to act in a serious way, there will be a different response.

Much of the burden of enforcing U.N. sanctions rests with China; 90 percent of trade with North Korea is from China. We will work with China. We will work with any and every country that believes in peace.

But we will not, repeat, the inadequate approaches of the past that have brought us to this dark day.

We cannot forget the multiple missile tests this year, or yesterday’s escalation.

We cannot forgot Otto Warmbier and others North Korea continues to hold. We cannot forget the threats to our friends and allies around the world.

We will not forget, and we will not delay.

Thank you.

Let’s examine North Korea’s position:

“President Donald Trump has staunchly opposed North Korea’s pursuit of ICBMs, as well as its desire to develop the technology to fit them with nuclear warheads, which Pyongyang views as essential to its survival in case of foreign invasion.” – Time, July 5, 2017
Given President Trump’s 50-year history of action, it is extremely unwise to attempt to call his bluff, as he simply has none.  He researches what he can and cannot do, then does what he must in order to accomplish his goals.
 
For Pyongyang to view nuclear weapons “as essential to its survival in case of foreign invasion” is about as blitheringly idiotic as could be, especially since 95% of all countries around the world have no nuclear weapons.  Not one of those 187 countries without nuclear weapons is invading them, so why would any one of the 8 countries with nuclear weapons want to invade North Korea?  We’ve had nukes for seventy-two years.  Most of the other 7 countries have had their nukes for at least fifty years.  If any of us had any interest in invading North Korea or using nuclear weapons against North Korea in a preemptive strike, we’d have done so long ago.  What we’ve been hoping for over the last 64 years is that North Korea would come to its senses and do what nearly all other countries have done:  Establish normal diplomatic relations and engage in free trade with others.
The U.S. (nor any other country) has absolutely no interest whatsoever in invading North Korea, unless North Korea develops and threatens to use nuclear weapons against others.  Thus, North Korea’s fearful reaction, their aggressive actions, and their threats are not only not in their best interests, they’re in their absolutely worst interests.  They’re completely irrational.  It’s downright blatantly stupid given the direct consequences which will — must — follow North Korea’s threats of using nuclear weapons against others.
 
Some FACTS about nuclear weapons:
 
1. Out of 196 countries around the world, only 9 (4.6%) of them have nuclear weapons. The other 187 countries (95.4%) around the world have no nuclear weapons.
 
2. Russia has 47.9% of all nuclear weapons. The U.S. has 44.5% of all nuclear weapons. Third on that list, France as 2.1%, followed by China at less than 2%.  North Korea might have as many as 8 nuclear weapons (0.05%), but the actual number is probably less than that due to their underground testing.  Here’s the full list
 nuclear weapons
3. When it comes to official world policy on North Korea, 98.15% of all nuclear weapons in the world can be pointed at and used against the country, should that need arise.
Bottom line, given the military might and nuclear capability of the U.S., Russia, France, China, the U.K., Pakistan, India, and Israel — ALL of whom are members of the United Nations, North Korea will NEVER succeed in using force, especially nuclear force, against any other country, as ALL other countries would wipe them off the face of God’s good, green Earth.  North Korea is about a second away from self-annihilation.  They had better find someone who isn’t bent on self-destruction to right their ship and lead their nation out of the minefield into which they’ve drifted.

The United Nation’s Anti-Blasphemy Resolution is an ABOMINATION

I am writing with respect to the recent UN “Anti-Blasphemy Resolution.”  They want to make that resolution binding on the part of all member nations, including the United States of America.  Put simply:

“The U.N.’s top human rights body has approved a proposal by Muslim nations urging the passage of laws protecting religion from criticism. Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor of a resolution Thursday to combat “defamation of religion.” Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained. The resolution was proposed by Pakistan.” – Source

Lou Doubbs recently ran a piece on CNN Live entitled, “Free Speech FIGHT.” The 10:48 piece detailed the UN’s proposal, as well as the response to the following poll question: “Do you believe the United Nations’ restriction of freedom of speech in the United States should be tolerated?” 98% of the respondents answered “No.” Only 2% of all Americans answered “Yes.”  Interestingly enough, 2% of Americans are Muslim.

By a margin of fifty to one, the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT want the United Nations to have ANY say over our freedom of speech.  I concur with that wholeheartedly, as free speech protects all freedoms, including those of Muslims.

Furthermore, regardless of whatever federal, state, or local law may say, our Constitution remains “the supreme Law of the Land.” It details clear and certain terms the precise process by which any treaty can be made and what authority it may have in our country. I have detailed that process in clear, straightforward terms with respect to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, here.

Put simply, if a treaty violates the Constitution, it is not a legal treaty. As per several Supreme Court rulings, it is null and void, having zero value.  It is not to be followed, much less enforced, and is the responsibility of everyone to ensure that it is repealed.

The same process and restrictions would apply to the adoption of any UN resolution. It may not violate our Constitution in any form or fashion whatsoever, period.

With respect to religion in general, I am a Bible-believing Christian. I have no problems with the vast majority of other religions, including Judaism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Wiccan, and Voodoo. Unlike Islam, none of these systems of belief are out to dominate the world while murdering those who don’t believe.

Islam claims to be the last and final revelation from God, that no one needs any further evidence beyond the Qu’ran. If someone wants to claim that, fine. People can believe whatever they want to believe, provided it causes no harm to others.  Unfortunately, Islam not only doesn’t care about the harm it does to others, it strongly encourages it in many verses in the Qu’ran and the Hadith.

Islam takes this to the utter extreme, forbidding everyone, regardless of their faith, to express any doubts about it, while maintaining that any such challenge is punishable by death. If they can’t successfully demand absolute adherence right now, they get it by clawing and screaming for at least some movement towards their totalitarianism.  Inch by inch, they’re taking over the world.  There have been 71 attacks by Islam against the United States on our own soil since 1972, and the frequency per year is increasing.

Islamic suppression of our freedom of speech is totalitarianism defined. It is a rape and butchery of our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as those rights specifically mentioned in our First Amendment, and other rights not specifically mentioned but covered by our Ninth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Along with 49 out of 50 other Americans, I hereby reserve my rights, including my right to speak out in protest against this most heinous of belief systems our planet has ever seen.

In the Spring of 2001, I began paying closer attention to the increased volume and nature of pro-Islamic chatter.  What I read opened my eyes to the true nature of Islam. At the time, such horrors were not commonly known in the Western world. Following 9/11, however, the true face of Islam has been uncovered by a great many sources, even as Islam seeks to replace the veil of deceit through UN mandate.

Based on that chatter, the actions taken by Muslims over the last 25 years, and the very writings of the Qu’ran and the Hadith, I can confirm that Islam is not a religion.

Although it’s cloaked in the guise of a religion, it is a totalitarian movement towards absolute power and control over other people, fostered predominantly by the Imams and those in militaristic power, but unwittingly aided by those who earnestly believe a subset of Islamic belief designed to pacify, control, and recruit them to Islam’s most sinister purpose.

When Islam takes hold among the masses, it becomes a societally-contagious mental illness responsible for the murder of hundreds of millions of human beings — more so than any other single source of murder on the planet.  Most people, especially the liberal mainstream media, forget that long before the Christian Crusades took the first step in 1094, the Muslim Crusades has waged 461 years of war between Muhammad’s conquering of Mecca in 630 A.D. to Almoravids actions between 1050 and 1091 A.D.  A total of 43 distinct campaigns and thousands of individual battles during which they slaughtered millions of non-believers, pretty much everyone who refused to convert to Islam.

The saddest part about Islam is that they are doing precisely the same thing today.

When you read through the Qu’ran, you come to realize there is no middle ground. Anyone adhering to the Qu’ran is bound to follow through on Islam’s plan for total domination. The idea that the problems are only created by a tiny number of “radicals” is a myth, as is the idea of “moderate Muslims.” More than 38% of all Muslims polled in all countries world-wide strongly support the actions taken by so-called radicals, including the murder and beheadings of innocent women and children whose only “crime” is that they refused to convert to Islam.

That is not a “tiny minority.”

I see absolutely zero value in our country giving in even a nanometer to this abominable UN resolution. Instead, I see great, even massive harm in store for the future of our country, as well as all freedom-loving people around the globe. Many countries have already begun steeling themselves against the rising tide of Islam, and for good reason. They see it for the massive abomination of death, destruction, and totalitarianism that it really is, as clearly evidenced in the words of the Qu’ran and Hadith itself.

I strongly encourage you to resist any and all attempts by anyone towards a “middle road” solution. There simply is no middle ground with the totalitarianism and massive human rights abuses of Islam. Even a 10% solution would erode our precious freedoms for which so many have fought and for which far too many have died.

When it comes to Islam, my input is no way.  Not now, not ever.

Islam is THAT heinous a disease, and I, a Constitutionally-sworn patriot, will defend the United States of America against such heinous assaults on our freedoms to the death, if necessary.

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.

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!