U.N Gun Ban Treaty is ILLEGAL — Neither Obama nor Clinton Have The Authority

There was a lot of talk this year about the dreaded U.N. Gun Ban Treaty.  This year it was in the guise of a “UN Conference on Arms Trade Treaty,” 2-27 July 2012, commensurate with its long-standing push to rid the world of privately-owned firearms, as undeniably indicated by the very large statue near the entrance to the United Nations building in New York, NY.  That revolver has its barrel tied in a knot, like so:

Furthermore, as one rather astute blogger noticed, “One such working draft of possible treaty language, dated July 14, 2012, tried to assuage the concerns of gun rights proponents … that the treaty would interfere with their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It did so by affirming in its preamble “the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.””  This blogger observes “The problem is that preambles have no binding legal effect in a treaty or a contract.  Thus, the disclaimer is legally meaningless. What counts are the operative provisions within the body of the document.”

Six years ago, the United Nations tried similar tactics by posting two disclaimers, still on their website here, and here, in which they claimed there is no agenda to deny law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, that they’re not negotiating any sort of treaty (like the one Hillary Clinton and Obama just signed), that the U.N. has neither jurisdiction over the states nor any interest in compelling them to abide by their “treaty.”

Put simply, the United Nations has been lying their butts off.  It’s one of the many reasons I fully support their immediate removal from U.S. soil, and our immediate withdrawal from their ranks.  Their efforts are hell-bent on undermining our Constitution.  As such, they are our foreign enemy.

This summer, immediately following the conference, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eagerly took the U.N. resolutions to Congress and said, “See?  The world is in agreement!  Can we sign it now?” to which Congress not only said “No,” but effectively told the dynamic duo “HELL NO!”

So, what did Obama and Clinton do in response?  They signed it anyway, without Congressional approval as is required by our Constitution, and therefore without any Constitutional authority whatsoever:

“He [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

So, no problem, right?  I mean if they didn’t have the authority to sign it, it’s not binding, right?

Well, legally speaking it’s not binding.  Then again, Obama has committed a number of high crimes and misdemeanors while in office, including running for election, not once, but twice, even after he admitted in public and before live video cameras (see the video, here) that he’s not an American, wasn’t born in Hawaii, and is from Kenya.  He has signed more Executive Orders than all his predecessors combined, and some of those E.O.’s grant himself various authorities which are neither his to grant, nor posses, at least according to our Constitution.

You see, the problem is two-fold.  First, Obama the “Constitutional Scholar” neither respects nor follows our Constitution.  Forget the fact that it’s the law of our land, and violating it is a crime.  He doesn’t care because of the second part of the problem:  Congress refuses to act on it.  When I asked John Boehner’s office last week, one of his staff members told me, “We’re not going to launch impeachment proceedings because we don’t have a 2/3 consensus.  It would just look foolish.”

So, America, we’re allowing a known criminal to remain in the highest office of our land because Congressmen are afraid of looking foolish.

Hmm…

Whatever happened to doing the right thing, regardless of the way it looked?  What if Sgt. York stayed in the trenches because he may have thought popping up and doing battle with the enemy with his expert marksmanship and fighting skills “looked foolish?”  What if General Eisenhower decided to scrap D-Day because he thought a full-scale invasion of the European mainland “looked foolish?”  What if George Washington refused to cross the Delaware River at night because he thought going against crack German mercenaries with a war-weary bunch of rag-tag troops “looked foolish?”

What Congress fails to realize is that their actions, based on their fear of looking foolish, actually looks shameful.  I would much rather look like a fool doing the right thing than look shameful because I could have done something but instead chose to do nothing.

Congress, it’s time you stop being concerned about how you look, and start being concerned about doing what’s right for our country.  We have a criminal in our White House, and by his own admission he’s not even eligible to be there in the first place.

People, write your Congressmen!  Do not “respectfully request” they look into the matter.  They already have, and they’re refusing to take the appropriate action.

Instead, write them and demand they take the appropriate action.  Let them know the only appropriate action is to immediately convene impeachment proceedings, preferably before January rolls around.  It’s not like there’s a lack of evidence!  If Obama’s not eligible, then he’s not eligible, and by his own admission he is not eligible to run for the office of the President, much less sit in the White House.

Bonus:  The People didn’t elect Biden.  They elected Obama-Biden.  If Obama is removed now, Biden will have no claim to the office.  He will either have to capitulate to Romney, or we’ll have another election, Biden against Romney.

Let’s see them try to win that one…