Personal Liberty Digest™ will be upgraded this weekend to reflect a dynamic new look and mobile-friendly viewing to enhance your experience! Plus, we'll be providing even more of the compelling content you've come to expect, delivered in a whole new way!

  Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty

June 7, 2013 by  

Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty
PHOTOS.COM

A majority in the U.S. Senate has told President Barack Obama not to do it. There’s no doubt that an overwhelming majority of Americans would oppose it — if the media ever told them about it.

Nonetheless, this past Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Obama will sign a controversial gun-control treaty promulgated by the United Nations. “We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official languages is completely satisfied,” Kerry said in a prepared statement.

Although the treaty is being touted as a way to prevent “illicit trade in conventional weapons,” it actually does far more than that. Among other outrages, it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own.

In other words, this U.N. treaty would mean the end of our 2nd Amendment rights. And Kerry says Obama will sign it. What kind of madness is this?

Resolutions condemning the treaty were promptly introduced in both branches of Congress. The measures submitted to the Senate by Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and to the House of Representatives by Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) declare that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States, as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

Then in March, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted an amendment to the budget bill that urged the Obama Administration “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.” Inhofe’s amendment was approved by a vote of 53 to 46.

So a majority of Senators have publicly declared their opposition to this dangerous treaty. Doesn’t sound like there’s much chance the treaty will get a positive vote by two-thirds of the Senate, which the Constitution says must be done for any treaty to take effect.

Despite rumors to the contrary, I don’t think even Obama — surely one of the most arrogant people to ever occupy the Oval Office — will try to do an end-run around this Constitutional requirement. But still, the President has come out in favor of it. And Kerry says the Administration is eager to sign it.

Which makes me wonder, have these guys lost their minds?

I’ll grant you, both men have made it clear throughout their careers the utter disdain they hold for the idea of any Constitutional restraints on their actions. But still, coming out in support of such a flagrantly unConstitutional measure now makes me wonder what is really going on here.

I’ve heard suggestions that the U.N. gun control treaty is being brought forward now to distract us from all the other scandals that are besetting the Obama Administration. But that’s as unlikely as the idea that the Administration decided to unleash the story of what the IRS did to Tea Party and other patriotic groups in an effort to distract people from two other scandals — the Administration’s response to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and the Justice Department’s surreptitious seizure of some reporters’ emails.

Okay, so we now know that the IRS actually planted the question that led to the story first breaking about how they targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. And of course it was incredibly stupid to ask for donors’ names and addresses and even questioning what some of the applicants believed.

Passing on some of that private information, so it could be posted on-line by a left wing group, compounded the folly. Clearly, some heads will have to roll over all of this. By the time Congress finishes its various investigations, some IRS employees may even face criminal penalties. From what we know, they should.

But I haven’t seen enough evidence yet to convince me that the IRS scandal will reach into the Oval Office. Yes, Obama set the tone that led to the malfeasance below him. But I don’t think he issued the orders. Unlike Watergate, there’s no recorded conversation or other smoking gun here: or, so far as we know, any impeachable offense.

But that’s emphatically not the case with the Administration’s active support of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Obama and his allies, including Kerry, know exactly what they’re doing. And they seem determined to proceed, no matter what anyone says.

The United Nations Small Arms Treaty was going nowhere last year. Obama, who was running for reelection, said he opposed it. Negotiators couldn’t agree on terms.

But then on Nov. 7 — one day after Obama won his second term — the President reversed himself and instructed our delegation at the U.N. conference to agree to a “Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” to be held in New York City in March.

When that conference voted to send the treaty to the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. representatives fully supported the move. Subsequently, on April 2 the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of its passage. The vote was a lop-sided 154 to 3. The Untied States was one of the “ayes.”

The “no” votes came from three of most notorious human-rights violators in a body that’s filled with them — Iran, Syria, and North Korea. China and Russia joined 21 other nations in abstaining.

How many of those countries were founded on the principle that the citizens’ rights come from God, not government? How many have anything resembling our own Bill of Rights, where the people’s rights (and the limitations on their rulers) are spelled out so forcefully and specifically?

I’m pretty sure the answer is zero.

No, those 154 countries represent some of the most repressive regimes on earth. There aren’t too many friends of freedom sitting in that glass palace on the East River.

The United Nations is been a notorious hotbed of anti-American sentiment since the day it was founded. We don’t have many friends there and never have. Heck, its very creation was virtually a communist plot against this country, as G. Edward Griffin proves in The Fearful Master, his invaluable study of the origins of this one-world monstrosity.

Allowing the United Nations to void our 2nd Amendment rights, and determine gun-control policies for this country would be a huge step down the road to our own enslavement. As I said before, it’s utter madness.

Let’s make sure that Barack Obama, John Kerry and their left wing allies don’t get away with it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

-Chip Wood

P.S. Once again I’ll be serving as master of ceremonies for FreedomFest, “the world’s largest gathering of free minds,” in Las Vegas, Nevada this July 10-13. Check out the amazing line-up of speakers, programs and debates at Freedom Fest. I encourage you to attend this inspiring gathering. If you do, please be sure to stop by and say hello.

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Harold Olsen

    I was always under the impression that any treaties had to be approved by Congress. I know that Obama thinks he is a dictator and can bypass Congress any time he wishes, but something like this needs to go through Congress. I know Obama doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution and like the rest of the left consider it to be an illegal document. Just how much do the American people have to put up with from this lying, racist, America-hating, Nazi scumbag before Congress does something about him? Enough is enough!

    • Avenger

      It’s really no longer up to congress…except for the very few, congress is complicit in trying to negate the “inalienable rights” of American Citizens. Most are lapdogs for the NWO, hoping to be one of the elite members of the new ruling class. A liberal is nothing more than a Marxist and people who vote for liberals are nothing more than useful idiots. It is as it has always been … up to the American Citizen. “If it is to be, it all depends on me”.

    • Don 2

      There are many ways in which extreme U.N. gun laws could be enforced in the U.S., even without ratification of a repressive treaty by the U.S. Senate. For one, the president could call the document an “agreement” rather than a “treaty.” Then, instead of needing two-thirds of the Senate, the document simply needs a majority in the U.S. House and Senate for approval. This is the tactic President Clinton used to convince Congress to ratify the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), which never could have won two-thirds’ support in the Senate.

    • Jeff

      In order to give a damn you first need to know something. The President signs a treaty, then the Senate decides whether to ratify it. Same process for over 200 years. But when Obama does it, he’s a dictator. You are either ignorant or totally deranged.

      • JeffH

        Unhinged Jeff, it is you who is both ignorant and totally deranged.

        The senate has already spoken and voted on the matter and voted 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty

        Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

        ____________________________________
        Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered an alternative amendment that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights. His amendment passed by voice vote.

        • Jeff

          I don’t know what you mean by unhinged but if it means I’m unhinged from your right wing viewpoint, I’ll take it as a compliment. I repeat, the president has the Constitutional authority to sign treaties. The Senate can either ratify or not. I don’t believe the president’s power to sign the treaty is preempted by anything Senator Inhofe has to say.

          I know you live in fear that someone from the U.N. is going to come for your guns. It won’t happen in this lifetime. If you want to continue to permit criminal organizations to get their hands on all kinds of weapons, by all means, oppose this treaty and every other piece of sensible legislation. Eventually, people will recognize you gun nuts are just plain nuts.

          • JeffH

            Unhinged Jeff, it’s very clear, even to a rock, what I mean when I refer to you as unhinged.

            I’ll help you to understand exactly what I mean: non compos mentis – Not of sound mind and hence not legally responsible; mentally incompetent.
            The rest of your babblings and ramblings clearly support what I mean when I refer to you as “unhinged” despite what YOU may or may not believe.
            NUFF SAID!

          • Jeff

            The shouting is the surest sign that you are engaging in the age-old wingnut practice of projection. You have done it throughout our communications. You adorn your posts with swastikas and pictures of Hitler and when called on it, you accuse me of having a “Hitler complex.” Tell it to one of your buddies while you’re killing something.

          • JeffH

            Unhinged Jeff, the good thing about you posting such ignorant comments is that anyone here that knows me will immediately recognize to what lengths you will go with your delusions to fabricate your points.

            The shouting…let me laugh out load right in your face…you’re desperate unhinged Jeff and have nothing to offer here but your words of frustration from being identified as a consistent progressive loser on this website.

            Yeah, you’re the one who keeps bringing up your “Hitler” complex, I’ve always said you have a Hitler “fetish”. Poor memory ,huh, unhinged Jeff?

            I have presented an avatar with Hitler and Obama side by side from time to time…to illistrate the similarities between the two…which you have continuously over-reacted to(that’s your Hitler fetish).

            Also, the swastika I used as an avartar …used ONCE on a thread re: Obama/socialism?…and was not the swastika of Hitler’s 3rd Reich Nazi’s(as much as you would like to believe it is), it was the swastika of the “National-Sozialistische-D.A.P.” German Workers Party and was only used to infuriate people just like you. Obviously it worked.

            As anyone can see, mission accomplished and then some.

            FYI, I revitalized the avatar – “National-Sozialistische-D.A.P.” German Workers Party swastika so you can take a closer look at it…and for everyone else that looks at it and reads this understands just how sick you really are…seek some help unhinged Jeff…seek some help!

          • Jeff

            Project away, Mr. H. As for me, I’ve never felt the urge, not one time, to use a swastika for anything.

          • JeffH

            The pressure cooker did it!

            ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

            ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

            Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • JeffH

            Unhinged Jeff, the only fear you know is your own…your comments betray you.
            LMAO!

        • WTS/JAY

          Sheriff Arrested In His Own Jail For “Believing In The Second Amendment”…

          A sheriff in Florida, Nicholas Finch, was charged for removing the arrest file of a suspect held on an unconstitutional gun charge.

          The 50-year-old sheriff was booked in his own jail on Tuesday with one count of official misconduct. He is accused of covering up the arrest of Floyd Eugene Parrish after releasing him from the Liberty County Jail. Parish was previously arrested for carrying a concealed firearm with no license. In Florida, this is a third-degree felony.

          Back on March 8th, Parrish was arrested and taken to jail after a traffic stop when a cop found a .25 automatic pistol in Parrish’s pocket and a holstered revolver in the front seat…

          http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/18604-sheriff-arrested-in-his-own-jail-for-believing-in-the-second-amendment/

          • JeffH

            Jay, I read that and will follow with interest.
            FYI, I love it when you post these links and articles…drives the libs batty-er.

          • WTS/JAY

            Here’s another humdinger, JeffH. It actually took me quite by surprise. It appears not all Liberal-Democrats are spineless and brain-dead…?

            LEFTIST JOURNO ON OBAMA SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL: “OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN VERY AGGRESSIVE ABOUT BULLYING AND THREATENING ANYBODY WHO THINKS ABOUT EXPOSING IT”

            When even a hard Leftist like Glenn Greenwald is hitting Obama for spying on the American people and threatening journalists who expose these activities, you know the scandal is huge.

            GLENN GREENWALD: The US Wants To ‘Destroy Privacy Around The World’ Business Insider, June 7, 2013 (thanks to Sara)…

            http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/06/leftist-journo-on-obama-surveillance-scandal-obama-administration-has-been-very-aggressive-about-bul.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

          • JeffH

            I’m just surprised that his support base is starting to push back. My God, it’s only taken 6 years for some of these usefull idiots to figure out they’re being used and abused.

      • vicki

        Educational information as to the treaty process for the benefit of Jeff (and others)

        http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossBlakleyLawLibrary/ResearchNow/ResearchGuides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

        The signing step mentioned by Jeff is AFTER the Senate ratifying step.

        • WTS/JAY

          Clueless Jeff must have missed that, not! He’s just being his usual lying self.

    • go4it

      He’s not a Nazi – although he seems to show “hostile indifference” to Israel. He’s a Marxist.

    • anthony

      No treaty that undermines the sovereignty of this country is Constitutionally legal, and is void of any authority. That was written into our Law of the Land for a good reason.

  • $9913635

    I’ll say it over and over whatever is not Constitutional need not be obeyed. If you obey it you’re are committing treason along with the traitor who made it.

    Take for instance taxes. The IRS is not a legal entity by Constitutional standards and there is no such thing as “income”. You are bartering whenever you work for wages.

    Only corporations have income. The Supreme Court once declared taxes as Unconstitutional.

    The 17th Amendment was never ratified also. Your elected officials have been running shod on the Constitution ever since it was created. You are seeing 100 years of it’s deterioration that has resulted in the devaluing of the currency, massive inflation, income slavery and the election of a foreign-born negro Muslim as your president.

    • Betta

      “The IRS is not a legal entity by Constitutional standards”

      Damn right they’re not legal and not many people realize this.

      ” The Supreme Court once declared taxes as Unconstitutional.”

      Then we must stop funding IRS. Claim 9 on your taxes like the illegals do. This is a legal loop hole, but illegals are claiming nieces and nephews who live in Mexico. They steal $4.1 BILLION per year doing this and get tax refund checks of $29,000 and more! The IRS knows but say there’s nothing they can do about it. BS!

      I read where one politician said the IRS needs to be “eviscerated”. I like how that sounds – Eviscerated. It’s almost cathartic.

      • mathis1689

        I think executed as in executed for high treason would be more like it-although eviscerated is a pretty good place to start!

        • FreedomFighter

          Bridenstine Questions President’s Leadershiphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=86UL9ekiXDk

          72 seconds of video you don’t want to missCongressman Jim Bridenstine’s House floor speech from 6-3-2013

          • WTS/JAY

            New York Times slammed for changing op-ed that says Obama has lost credibility…

            For several hours on Thursday, the New York Times stunned conservatives with an editorial that said the Obama administration “has now lost all credibility” after news broke of the NSA’s collection of Verizon phone data. But a few hours later, the Old Gray Lady changed the op-ed to soften its original attack by adding three words: “on this issue.” The edit caused many, including Fox News’ Sean Hannity, to slam the publication.

            http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-times-slammed-for-changing-op-ed-that-says-obama-has-lost-credibility

    • Vigilant

      “Only corporations have income. The Supreme Court once declared taxes as Unconstitutional.”

      Incorrect. Article I, sections 8 & 9 of the Constitution legalized the collecting of income taxes from the beginning of our nation. The 16th Amendment merely made it legal to collect them without apportionment.

      The SCOTUS once declared taxes without apportionment
      unconstitutional, and that’s why the 16th Amendment was subsequently written and ratified.

      Read your history.

      • $9913635

        YOU are incorrect. They only can collect on ENUMERATED powers. They have gone waaay overboard and beyond what was enumerated. A misinterpretation powered by egregious greed.

        • Vigilant

          “They only can collect on ENUMERATED powers.”

          That sentence makes no logical or cognitive sense…and also shows you have no knowledge of the Constitution.

          Article I, Section 8: “1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

          Article I, Section 9: “4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

          Bottom line: apportioned taxes on income have been legal since the birth of the nation. Unapportioned taxes on income became a Constitutional amendment.

          P.S. “Enumeration” here means “counting,” i.e., taking census. It has NOTHING to do with enumerated powers, which is something completely different.

          • KG

            Thank you for your clear explanation of the 16th amendment. However, many of your knuckle-dragging comrades seem to still have trouble understanding anything beyond a plain narrative.

          • WTS/JAY

            You just couldn’t stop at Thank You, could you, snapper-head?

    • TIME

      Dear People,

      For you that can “Comprehend” this FACT OF TRUTH, the “Original” 13th Amendment is the KEY to the flat tire.

      The 13th Amendment we now have was never “radified” thus thats the real root of all the problems we face today.
      You don’t have a Government, ~ you don’t have a Congress, ~ nor a POTUS, { what you have is a Corporation} ~ known as the “United States inc”
      The people on the land / Americans are not party to the United States inc.
      Thus only when the American people understand all of this for what it really is, { nothing will ever change.} Oh wait yes it will change for the worse, and if you think its bad now —- Wait 18 months.
      Peace and Love, Shalom.

  • Betta

    He can sign it all he wants. It will not be honored so he is wasting his time and ink. It is constitutionally illegal and we will not let anyone, including an illegal alien marxist socialist dictator president take away our rights. I guess We The People will have to demonstrate what we are made of now won’t we.

    Do I hear the faint bells of revolution?

    • Adolf Schmidt

      I can’t hear you over all those dang bells!

      • Betta

        Let Freedom ring, baby. Let Freedom RING! A bell that will not be unrung!

        USA! USA! USA!

  • Darral

    TREASON bottom line Obama signs Obama commits treason against the constitution and the American people, But then Obama don’t give a Rats — about the Constitution or the American people, To bad that most of the Time the Democrats support him, Obama is their Guy ,the Democrats are responsible for who they put in Office , Abolish this Destructive Treasonous Democratic party.

    • Elton Robb

      The rank and file Democrat is not largely responsible. Presidents are selected rather than elected in this Country.

      • Don 2

        Bull!
        Still Voting Democrat?
        You’re Stuck On Stupid!

        • Elton Robb

          I suggest you change your attitude. I am a libertarian. I’ve looked pretty hard into who is running this country, and it isn’t the President.

          • Don 2

            Show me one good Democrat! There are a lot of useless RINO’s, but there are no good Democrats. What party is consistently out to take away your 2nd. Amendment rights? What party in New York City is the nanny party passing laws to make selling a soda over 16-oz. illegal? What party in NYC went after bottle-feeding new mothers in hospital maternity wards? What party ran Chicago into the ground? What party in New York state passed ridiculous gun legislation for political purposes? What party made California the state to escape from? What party in Colorado passed ridiculous gun legislation? What party refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia? What party is trying to pass card check? What party refuses to enforce immigration laws on the books? What party is intentionally increasing the divide between blacks & whites, between workers and slackers? What party gave us Obamacare? What party wants cap & trade taxes, when earth’s temperatures haven’t increased in 16 years? What party wants to spread the wealth around? What party won’t go after our own natural resources? What party is persecuting Christians, small business owners, Conservatives? What party is for taxpayers paying for Sandra Fluke’s contraceptives? What party is in the pocket of public employee unions? What party is preventing the building of the XL pipeline from Canada and the jobs that go with it? What party is killing the coal industry and the jobs that go with it?
            I could go on forever, but I won’t!
            Still Voting Democrat? – You’re Stuck On Stupid!

          • Don 2

            One correction: What party ran Detroit(not Chicago) into the ground, and leaves Chicago citizens defenseless in the murder capital of the country?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Both the Democrats and the Republicans are only half-moral.
            The Democrats can rationalize using Government to take other peoples’ money, and the Republicans can rationalize using Government to force their way on other people and other countries.

          • Elton Robb

            Bill Orton.

          • Don 2

            Wow Elton, that’s really pathetic. The only good Democrat that you could name…..and he has to be a dead guy. I guess you proved my point better than I could. Thank you!

  • vicki

    So he signs it, So what? Without the consent of the senate (ignoring that it is flatly unconstitutional even if the senate were to vote for it) it can not become a treaty. Any attempt to enforce it by the executive department is sufficient cause to arrest any and all agents involved.

    • Don 2

      I smell a rat! Obama signs it. The treaty sits unnoticed and forgotten in the background for a couple of years. The dumb Americans, with the help of new Dumocrat voters/takers, possibly even former illegal aliens with new voting rights, elect more Dumocrats into the senate. Quietly, in the dark of night, with the help of some RINO’s, the treaty comes up on the Senate floor, and passes. The Communist press says nothing, the people know nothing, slowly the wheels of U.N. gun control start turning. America is Disarmed!

      Another possibility. An activist liberal court, possibly even the Supreme Court, for the good of the country, upholds the treaty as a valid, enforceable document. Do not think that this is not a possibility.

      • vicki

        Since no treaty can supersede the Constitution it really doesn’t matter if they follow the proper procedure in making this treaty or of obama signs it then some time later the Senate approves it.

        Our forefathers would not have put in such a simple way to circumvent the Constitutional amendment process.

        • Don 2

          In a country of laws, you make sense. Unfortunately, we are becoming a country of men.

  • KG

    Chip is a perfect example of “who flung pooh” journalism. Just take a handfull and see what sticks to the wall. He could have written for Hearst back in the day. Where “rosebud’?
    This so-called “treaty” is nothing like what Chip is portraying to be. Tell me, how would the UN enforce such a “treaty’? The UN can’t even put a row boat in the water. Those of you who insist on “clinging to your guns and Bibles” instead of recognizing your brothers and sisters (every one you meet) will continue to let this Country decline due to your greed.

    Ezekiel 16:49
    Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

    • Barbara Moody

      KG All we need are boots on the ground in an effort to enforce this policy.Our boots and foreign boots will be doing this!Our Constitution says our military shall never raise arms against our own people too,but you are going to see that happen.Our military has been training soldiers for almost 2yrs now in how to patrol our streets and impose laws,new laws. That isn’t hype! I Wish I can tell you how I know but am afraid I will get some people in trouble.Since you are using the Bible…I’m sure you have read of the destruction of the US,Israel and UK,haven’t you?? Take a look at what is happening around us.Our “times” are following the Bible to the letter!!

      • KG

        1 Thessalonians 4 (King James Version)

        16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

        17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

        18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

        We are supposed to comfort one another with these words, not scare us out of our money.

        2 Timothy 1:7
        For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

        Where does fear come from?

        • Joseph Hammond

          Fear? Some comes from the Jewish myths written in a book that was altered for political reasons in England (The “King James” Bible)…..Fear comes from the barrel of a gun as does power…..Death can create fear….Poverty can create fear….Slavery can create fear….Governments can create fear….Media can create fear….Doctors can create fear….Take your pick!

        • Jimmy the Greek

          So what you are trying to tell us is zombie thing is real and going to happen , with this dead rising crap . boy you need to put the crack pipe and the book down they are making you crazy .

      • Vigilant

        “Our Constitution says our military shall never raise arms against our own people too, but you are going to see that happen.”

        Sorry, there’s no such thing in the Constitution.

        • JeffH

          Vigilant, have you seen this ?

          Billboard Up At Twentynine Palms Marine Base!
          http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/06/01/billboard-up-at-twentynine-palms-marine-base/

          Another outside the main gate of Ft. Leavenworth Kansas
          http://oathkeepers.org/oath/billboard/

          Oath Keepers is Placing Billboards Outside Every Major Military Base in America to Educate the Troops About Their Oath Bound Duty to Refuse Unconstitutional Orders.

          Donations accepted here: https://www.formstack.com/forms/?750628-oJ9AeG1sgf

          • Vigilant

            Excellent billboards, Jeff. Thanks for the links.

        • Barbara Moody

          Vigilant Oh yes,it’s there!! Pull the constitution up on-line.You will have to do a bit of reading but you’ll find it.

          • Vigilant

            I assure you I am more knowledgeable in the Constitution than you are. I have read it many times and refer to it on almost a daily basis in support of my writings. Suppose you just cite article and section of this nonexistent provision.

            I repeat, there is no such thing in the Constitution. Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Whisky Rebellion, MacArthur’s use of federal troops against WWI vets in D.C., the use of troops in desegregation of southern universities, Kent State shootings, etc.

      • Joseph Hammond

        Insurrection can be used to impose the Military on the insurrectionists. “Our Constitution says our military shall never raise arms against our own people too, but you are going to see that happen.” This is a false statement.

        • Barbara Moody

          Joseph,I wish it is a false statement but I assure you it is quite accurate.Believe as you will! There are others with the same knowledge I have,I am not alone by any means.

        • Barbara Moody

          You’re right Joseph. Obama quietly changed that in Feb.!

    • Kimbo

      The collection of gun ownership data on our citizens is the threat. It’s one of the requirements in the treaty. Do some research. Calamities are walked into one step at a time. The reason our nation is in such deep “pooh” is because deniers have led us there, one step at a time.

    • Don 2

      The U.N. has a very long history of convincing nations to sign on to treaties with moderate, sensible language, and then-after ratification-twisting that language to impose extremist results.

      • KG

        The U.N. has a very long history of doing nothing. What country abides to UN mandates other than the USA? And, besides, maybe we do need a “small arms treaty” in America. At least between the Communists and the Right wing “Patriots”.

        • Don 2

          What country abides to UN mandates other than the USA?

          Looks like you just unwittingly answered the $1,000,000 question KG.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            That’s right ! Isreal dam sure don’t !

          • Don 2

            Well, JTG, it is a matter of life and death for those folks, and they are a bit familiar with people trying to kill them. I don’t know what you expect them to do when everyone around them is promising to to push them into the sea and kill them? What would you do in their shoes?

          • Vigilant

            Don2, JTG is the most anti-Semitic poster on this board. He once claimed the Nazis didn’t go far enough in killing the Jews. Don’t expect a sane answer from him.

          • Don 2

            I figured as much with his anti-Israel, pro-Nazi postings.

    • S.C.Murf

      kgb you are a fool. Right now the UN is dictating to the world and the US O.S.H.A. to change our Haz.Com. standards and our O.S.H.A. has already sent out decrees that this will be completed (training and documentation) by the end of 2015. Wake up fool or paid shill what ever you are. TIME for you to make that popping sound.

      up the hill
      airborne

    • JeffH

      KG’s a true “Amerikan” Patriot and I believe everything KG just said is true.

      Congratulations on winning the Darwin Award for that comment.
      FYI, Jbc53 was just percentage points away from winning that prestigious award with his earlier ulta intelligent post.

      “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”. – M.L.K, Jr.

    • vicki

      Just the way any other treaty is enforced. By the individual country. That means the anti-gun crowd would expect the federal government of the US to enforce the treaty.

  • Jbc53

    Let me see if I get this right. The only count

    • Vigilant

      Huh?:

      • JeffH

        Let me refer you to Jbc53’s earlier post.
        Me thinks he’s a bit confused or…?

        Jbc53•7 hours ago: Posted to soon . The only countries to vote Against this treaty were Syria, Iran and North Korea! And Chip thinks we should vote with this group! Are you nuts or are you a terrorist supporting commie Chip? You want this group to be our new friends and allies? So when Iran gets some fun missiles and gives them to al-quida to shoot down American planes, the blood of Americans is on your hands. You are a traitor.

        • Vigilant

          Understood now, Jeff!

          Apparently, Jbc53 believes it’s better to give up our second amendment rights than it is to offend Syria, Iran and North Korea by voting for the treaty. Go figure.

          • Jbc53

            If the US voted against this treaty we would be JOINING the only nations who voted against it…..N. Korea, Syria and Iran. Think about that. Why do you think these are the only countries to vote against it? Cause they love freedom? Or maybe they want to get weapons they can hand to their terrorist friends who hate us. Americans will end up dying cause folks like some of the people posting here are either idiots or terrorist loving traitors.

          • Vigilant

            I repeat, “Apparently, Jbc53 believes it’s better to give up our second amendment rights than it is to offend Syria, Iran and North Korea by voting for the treaty. Go figure.”

            You’re an idiot, plain and simple.

          • Jbc53

            ok Vigilant. I didn’t realize I was dealing with a rocket scientist. Please explain to me how voting against the treaty would offend Syria, N.Korea and Iran….who also voted against it? That makes no sense. Increasingly clear to me you are a terrorist loving supporter of our enemies. I bet you would love to sit in the Dear Leaders’s lap. Leave this country to the true patriots.

          • Vigilant

            True patriots? You obviously wouldn’t know the meaning of the word. “Patriots” like you consider giving up Second Amendment rights rather than “join” rogue nations in voting against a treaty that is unconstitutional on its very face.

            Somehow, through that muddled, befuddled mass of matter you call a brain, you have concluded that “joining” nations in a vote somehow “joins” nations in spirit, or makes them “new friends and allies.”. It does not. YOU, sir, are a traitor for advocating abrogation of the Constitution, and YOU, sir, are as crazy as a loon.

            P.S. Proficiency in rocket science is not a prerequisite for common sense and a functioning brain. You have neither.

          • Jbc53

            Nice try Vigilant. Guess you can’t answer the simple question- why do terrorist countries vote against this treaty?
            And second why would we want to vote on their side? The reason you can’t answer these simple question is because you are a terrorist loving scum. You are not a patriot. You are a traitor who wants to see these countries get weapons to kill Americans. Go back and sit on dear Leaders lap.

          • Vigilant

            “why do terrorist countries vote against this treaty?”

            Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. Are you some touchy-feely liberal who cares about the motivations of some foreign country? Or do you advocate that, on any given vote in the UN, the US should wait and see who’s on “our side” before we vote?

            What is so difficult for you to understand that The US is a sovereign nation that is obligated to vote its conscience and within Constitutional guidelines without reference to any other nation? ANY treaty that fails to meet Constitutional muster is no treaty in so far as we are concerned.

            And you persist in your abject stupidity by claiming that “we want to vote on their side.” Get this through your head, ignoramus, we are obligated to vote ON OUR SIDE and ONLY our side.

            And if you had a lick of sense, you’d see that voting for that treaty would make us MORE susceptible to terrorists, not less.

          • Jbc53

            You didn’t answer the question. The reason you don’t care about why terrorist countries voted against and our allies voted for it is because you are a terrorist loving commie scum. The Dear Leader is waiting for you. Maybe you can sit in his lap and tell him what you want for Christmas.

          • Vigilant

            I’ll entertain discussions with those of opposing viewpoints, but I’ll not spar with mental midgets. Seek professional help.

            Consider this discussion terminated.

        • Vigilant

          Got it! Thanks, Jeff.

  • Jbc53

    Posted to soon . The only countries to vote Against this treaty were Syria, Iran and North Korea! And Chip thinks we should vote with this group! Are you nuts or are you a terrorist supporting commie Chip? You want this group to be our new friends and allies? So when Iran gets some fun missiles and gives them to al-quida to shoot down American planes, the blood of Americans is on your hands. You are a traitor.

    • LarryK357

      let’s face it people, we are on our own and to survive we know what we must do.

    • Kimbo

      …and if that’s all you understand from this post, you are an idiot.

    • JeffH

      Without any doubt your comment is far and away the most ignorant comment that will be posted on this thread…that includes the ignorant comments by the progressives and liberals.

      • Vigilant

        Agreed. I’ve got to wonder what kind of abject lowlifes have voted Jbc53’s post up.

        • JeffH

          Perhaps KG and unhinged Jeff?

        • Jbc53

          Lets keep it simple for terrorist supporting scum like you! North Korea threatened this country with nuclear attack and you think we should vote with them? You are either a complete idiot or a traitor. Maybe you will be better off going to N. Korea where you can carry the dear Leader’s bags

          • Vigilant

            Simple you are indeed! Your one-dimensional obsession is amusing to behold.

            Let’s see if we’ve got this right. You believe (incredibly) that voting to quash a UN treaty that has the capacity to annul our 2nd Amendment rights is equivalent to supporting rogue nations? Time to have your head examined, sonny.

            You might want to invest in a dictionary. Voting “with” someone is not the same as voting “for” someone.

            You’re obviously a product of public so-called “education” that sees no need to instruct students in simple logic.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Jbc,
            A more apt observation would be that the supposed “terrorist” nations are the only ones who took a stand for Freedom. A sad commentary is that.

            Note the gutter level attempts at manipulation attempted by Jbc — “Are you nuts or are you a terrorist supporting commie Chip?”.

            Does that really work for you, Jbc? Do you teach 4th graders?

            Jbc,
            Can you name any other country in this world that has created as much carnage as the US military?

            For those with the capacity to think instead of allowing themselves to be manipulated by self-serving thugs like Jbc:
            http://library.mises.org/books/John%20V%20Denson/A%20Century%20of%20War%20Lincoln,%20Wilson%20and%20Roosevelt.pdf

  • bygeorge

    I recommend a review of Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957) where the US Supreme Court ruled the Constitution supercedes international treaties even those ratified by the US Senate. There are many facets to this ruling, when recognized, that indeed protect US Citizens. An excellent commentary on the ruling, by Mr. Jon Roland, explains all.

    • Don 2

      Another forum could be the World Court, which is part of the United Nations. The World Court(International Court of Justice) is only for government versus government cases; so Mexico, Japan, or some other country could sue the United States for its failure to enact the gun controls required by the treaty. For the suit to move forward, the United States would have to consent to World Court jurisdiction, but it is not hard to imagine the Obama-Kerry administration consenting to the jurisdiction – and working behind the scenes to encourage strongly antigun governments such as Brazil or Mexico to sue.

    • Vigilant

      JEFF, bygeorge is correct.

      NO foreign government or collection of governments can dictate squat to the sovereign United States in contravention of the Constitution. Period.

      • WTS/JAY

        Now that’s, good news! Yet the progs are always accusing us of spreading gloom and doom. Go figure. (-:

        • Vigilant

          Not being able to sidestep the Constitution is bad news for the progressives.

          • WTS/JAY

            Absolutely! And I should like to trumpet that we keep it, and protect it, at all cost. But most importantly, we must begin to introduce this old friend, the Constitution, to our progeny. We make much a do about leaving a partly-inheritance out of concern for their physical-sustenance, but it be of no value if the foundation upon which their house rests, be removed.

  • CCblogging

    I have a question for any libs here. Is this the change that you had in mind, when you pushed that voter button for the Fascist pig destroying our Constitution and Republic?

  • Reader

    Woody proves again that he has no sense and that he has low reading comprehension skills. The proposed treaty has no effect on our domestic gun-related laws. If he could point to the text of the treaty that he claims would “take away our 2nd amendment…” he would do so, but he can’t and won’t.
    He also seems to not understand the normal way treaties are done. A president always signs them first, and then the Senate takes a vote on it (after the signing.)

    • Ranchman

      Don’t know much about Patriotism, do ya there, Donny boy? Nope, it don’t seem like you’d recognize what it takes to be Patriotic if you absolutely had to. Unfortunate that there’s citizens like you in this country, unable to see clearly enough to see what’s really happening to you. But you’ll see the truth in the end, that’s the way it works. Truth always wins out in the end.

    • Kimbo

      Reader. The treaty requires that all countries collect data on guns possessed by their citizens. That collection of data is the problem. Maybe you are a reader but you’re not a “comprehender”.

    • Vigilant

      “He also seems to not understand the normal way treaties are done. A president always signs them first, and then the Senate takes a vote on it (after the signing.)”

      Talk about lack of reading comprehension skills! Take a gander at Mr. Woods’ seventh paragraph, Nonreader.

      • WTS/JAY

        It seems reader was trying his hand at some “who flung pooh” journalism. You know, just take a handfull and see what sticks to the wall! Lol!

  • ImListening

    It sort of makes you feel like, Obonzo is going for the end zone in his last term, or second term (maybe a 3rd). His Change is going all the way, with the international backing now. So when their is a revolt by the people, even if there is martial law, he can bring in the UN troops to help squash the civil unrest.

    • Jimmy the Greek

      The UN troops well be easy targets , for us with them stupit bule helmits lol

    • crossrammed302

      You took the words right out of my head! In the event of patriots standing up to rebel against the sitting government; civil war, as in all the middle east countries, the UN coalition will come on our soil and and decide which side to back. So we will fight our own government and the coalition of foriegn UN troops. These troops, hate Americans and will be here to pillage the riches of our country, just as the federal government is reaping in the fruits of our labors now. I believe that if we motivate and work from the ground level up (city, county, state governments) each state can reclaim the rights the feds have stolen and eventually the federal government will be reduced. This is opposite of what the progressives (fascist) have done over a long period of time, secrectly and underhandedly. We should be vocal, truthful, open and educate our neighbors, even if you only print of articles and hang the in public places to help even one more person open themselves to the truth of where our non representative government is leading us….into slavery and decay for their own benifit.

  • marcdepiolenc

    He can sign it if he likes. It’s only a gesture – a cowardly and malicious gesture – until and unless the Senate ratifies the treaty. And that isn’t going to happen in this Senate.

    • Merle Dickey

      you hope!This muslim jerk does anything he wants and half the country thinks he is wonderful!!! Someone mentioned they would like him to go poof , wouldn’t that be great.

  • Ranchman

    To think that Obama, or whatever his name is, didn’t know about or have anything to do with Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS and the AP scandals just doesn’t sit right with me at all. If he didn’t, he’s the most incompetent person in the world. One thing is absolutely true though, without a doubt; Obama is the most dangerous man to ever be holding the office he’s in right now. He ascended to that position fraudulently to begin with, completely disregarding the rule of law and the honor of this country. His goals are evil and he will do anything to see them through. America is blind to the fate that awaits her, although it’s becoming clearer every day. One thing is for certain, if Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro/Harrison J. Brounel or whoever he is isn’t stopped soon, our future generations will live in a totally different world than we grew up in. His “fundamental transformation” of this nation will be difficult to stop, the damage will go on for years because of his political appointments.

  • Ranchman

    Reports I’ve read say that the wording of this treaty is such that, after so many years, unless the
    next sitting president outright rejects it, it will become “settled
    law,” enforceable as such. This is why this thing is so dangerous and must be stopped. They were slick when they wrote this thing up, there’s too many loopholes in it which let it become law. Obama must be stopped, period.

    • Vigilant

      It will not become “settled law” unless ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. Even then, it would probably fail the SCOTUS test. The writers of the treaty can be as slick as they want. Their “traps” have no force of law unless a Constitutional amendment is passed.

      • WTS/JAY

        Vigilant, more then glad to have someone with your exceptional-knowledge of the Constitution on board! Truly makes my heart sing!

        • Vigilant

          Thank you, sir! And keep up your good work, too!

  • JEFF

    OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES HAVE GONE TOO FAR…..NEED TO IMPEACH THEM ALL NOW!

  • Red55bird

    In the name of God I do swear to keep and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America so help me God. Folks Obama has showed nothing more then treason and a all out attack on our 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, the time has come America that the citizens oust this Dictator from office with Impeachment for treason on the people. Obama has been working overtime to buy has mush ammunition as possible and bring about a large shortage of ammunition for gun owners in America. So we must ask makers of ammunition to stop selling to Government and reject any regulations that this Administration makes with the U.N. for it’s unconstitutional. I’m quite sure that the 90 million legal gun owner will stand with these manufactures of ammunition for our weapons. If this rouge Government wants War then War it will be, for we do not answer to any other Government around the world. This so called One World Order will not be excepted by the people of America period. The U.N. must pack their bags and leave and don’t let the door hit you in the butt as you leave.

    • Joseph Hammond

      First: Impeachment is a charge. Any President must be tried by the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as judge. Only after conviction can he be removed from office (see Clinton Impeachment and Trial by Senate)….Treason is defined as follows in the Constitution:

      “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Article III section 3

      Unless you believe that Homeland Insecurity is a war against the people of the US (and must be able to prove it in a court of law run by the government) or that Obama is aiding “enemies” of the US (whoever they are at the moment according again to the government; see Communist China) then he is not guilty of treason according to the Constitution.
      Now on the other hand if you are saying he is a pawn for Wall Street (Obamacare is a deal to force us to buy Insurance from the corporate masters of the Insurance industry) and the corporations who milk us dry through the Department of War (the original name of the Department of Defense) providing weapons we do not need, that do not work, and wars to protect their investments overseas, then I am in complete agreement with you…..

  • me

    Didn’t he swear to uphold the constitution when he became president. If he signs it wouldn’t it make him a traitor to this country. Too bad he can’t be tried as one. try the rest of his butt kissers like Hillary,Kerry,Bden, and any representitives who vote to support this violation of this constitution. Too bad l the rules of the useless outside organization can override our laws. Why not start a petition which would force congress to take us out of the UN. I’ve read articles about how this stupid country has gotten itself into paying twenty percent of the cost to keep the UN going. There is way over 100 countries in the world and the fools running the country are more than willing to do most of the support of it. We know who the fools of the world are.

    • Vigilant

      “Didn’t he swear to uphold the constitution when he became president. If he signs it wouldn’t it make him a traitor to this country.”

      No, it wouldn’t, because his signature has no Constitutionally legal authority on such a document.

    • Joseph Hammond

      Article II section 2 states it takes 2/3 of the Senate present to consent to a treaty. Woodrow Wilson (our “progressive” racist President) signed the League of Nations treaty but it was rejected by the Senate led by Sen. Lodge…. It is not binding until the Senate consents to it even if the President signs it…. I do not believe the Senate can pass this…There is also a Supreme Court decision that states that international laws cannot trump the Rights recognized in the Constitution….These are very easy to find if you look on the internet instead of remaining ignorant and opinionated without facts….

  • me

    Too bad they can’t do recall elections on presidents.

    • $8012302

      We can, recall the congress that will not impeach this president. The power of our vote is too often overlooked.

  • Old Wolf

    The supreme court has already found that no treaty, contrary to the powers granted congress in the Constitution may be valid. Those treaties must be in pursuance of a power already granted under that constitution, not going after goals forbidden by the constitution. They cannot operate in such a manner as to void the rights of the people, guaranteed against our government by treaty, exposing them to enforcement via people not under our control.

    There is no authority over the second amendment at the federal level, and the states (Senators being representatives of those states) cannot give that authority, lacking it themselves, under article 4 of the constitution regarding abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens. Our rights are more properly seen as immunities from government action, and as such, are a more potent reminder of their role and nature.

    What the states and federal government may not do directly, they may not do indirectly. They may not reach out to other parties to accomplish goals they are forbidden, or authorize them then close their eyes to the acts committed.

    We own that government. It would be like placing a person to mind your home, and then coming home to find that he was actively engaged in selling that home, and the land attached to it, in violation of the agreement. That constitution is our agreement, between the people, limiting both state and federal authority.

    If they transgress it, via any means, treaty or law, that transgression is void from its inception, it has no reality, and nobody is, by law, bound to obey it. Any court enforcing it has abandoned its jurisdiction, and established itself as a lawbreaker. It is not void from when it is found void, but has always been void for a lack of fundamental power to create it. It’s an illusion, smoke and mirrors, only allowed to appear to be law for our lack of will to resist it.

    • $8012302

      I’m glad to see that there are other patriots that understand the power of the Constitution (the people) over the government.

  • Dave

    Geez Lousie…. I guess Chip misses the part where the treaty says that this agreement does not supercede any internal laws and agreements but this is typical of the right wing loon fear brigade.

    • Don 2

      Geez Chip…..I guess Dave missed Article 20

      Amendments

      1. Six years after the entry into force of this Treaty, any State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty. Thereafter, proposed amendments may only be considered by the Conference of States Parties every three years.

      4. …..amendment shall, as a last resort, be adopted by a three-quarters majority vote of the States Parties present and voting at the meeting of the Conference of States Parties.

      So, accordingly, only three-quarters of the UN Dictators and Tyrants present at any given meeting of the Conference of States Parties are required to amend the treaty. How convenient. Whatever could go wrong there?

      • Dave

        Geez Don,
        Nothing in this treaty supercedes US law. But why would you read the treaty?

        • Don 2

          You ask, “Why would I read the treaty?”

          Answer: I like to know what the tyrants and dictators are up to! And I already knew long ago that their end game is to disarm American citizens, bit by bit.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Dave,
          Did you vote in the last election for UN representatives?

    • $8012302

      Dave, I don’t know what toad stool you fell off of but our Constitution requires the government not to tread on the freedom of the individual nor collectively of our nation. It was formulated by men that had just gone through what Obama is in the process of resurrecting, a totalitarian government. Freedom has been the goal of this country since the ultimatum given to King George by our of Declaration of Independence. If you wish to be dominated by that type of oppression then there are countries in this world where you would fit in. This is not one of them. We have fought several world wars in order to prevent our people from being over powered by a socialist type of environment. The infiltration of socialism has occurred starting with FDR and individual freedoms have continued to be attacked by those obsessed with control of every aspect of our life. Well freedom is more dear to us than safety, otherwise we would still be speaking the king’s English, German, Russian, Chinese or any number of languages in which a country has had their eye on this land. The freedom of the people of this country lies in the courage of each individual to resist enslavement by an oppressive government The formula for that resistance was the Declaration of Independence written in 1776 and adopted on July 4,1776 and delineated by the Constitution ratified on July 2, 1788. This administration’s actions have from the onset strived to take that freedom away. “Freedom at all costs” “FREEDOM OR DEATH”

      • Guest

        FREEDOM

  • Don 2

    The U.N. has become, in practice, a genocide enabler. Formerly, tyrants preparing for genocide carried out civilian disarmament themselves. Now, genocide perpetrators have U.N. assistance in disarming their victims.

  • FreedomFighter

    “Allowing the United Nations to void our 2nd Amendment rights, and determine gun-control policies for this country would be a huge step down the road to our own enslavement. As I said before, it’s utter madness.”
    Once they have curbed ownership or removed enough guns to meet minimum parameters set for takeover of the country, they will move to remove the remaining weapons from American hands. and institute hard tyranny. In other words, once they have us helpless or ;unable to respond in a credible forceful way, the calculated losses (like any military operation) are within acceptable levels (whatever that is) and the scenario generators are satisfied of a win, we will be fully enslaved to the NWO.Sounds preposterous, crazy? Its what they the UN say in there own documentation, the wording is more gentle but the goal is the same. Go read it.Laus DeoSemper FI

  • Ped Xing

    So sad that this wretched country needs the rest of the world to lead us into the light….

    • $8012302

      Alex have you ever heard of the dark ages when that type of oppression was tried. The light of this country was light when we rejected world domination. It will be put out by individuals like you advocating world domination again. Have you taken a look at the European Union. That is the chaos we will have here if your wished come to fruition..

    • WTS/JAY

      So sad that this wretched world is trying to lead this wonderful country back to the dark-ages!

      • Vigilant

        Excellent words, WTS/JAY.

        If this country is so wretched to you, Alex, no one will miss you when you leave.

        • Deerinwater

          Not sure of what to make of all of that. ~ Countries are made of dirt and people. ~ I suppose some dirt could be seen as “wretched” ~

          Where you approve or not, ~ as a young civilized nation America will follow Europe in so far as addressing the problems associated with dwindling space, resources and increases in population growth or there will be revolution and civil strife to thin the population.

          That’s a long view ~ to be sure.

          This Baby Boomers view of America’s place in the world cannot be sustained indefinitely.

          If America continues to squander it’s time and resources in distant lands without securing sound returns on our “investments” ~ The “end game” is not a pretty thing to contemplate.

  • James Matuszak

    They haven’t lost their minds. They want to do this. It’s part of Obama’s transformation of America that he promised when he ran for office in 2008. Even conservatives don’t get that. His “transformation of America” has a lot of legs to it. This is just one of them.

    • $8012302

      No James, only two legs and a Nazi like Gestapo army to back them up. Our freedom cannot be violated.

      • Jimmy the Greek

        Why do you all keep calling oboma a Nazi , He is not good enouf to be a Nazi ! he has no honer and no race ,he is a mutt !

        • $8012302

          I used Nazi as a descriptive word that most adults would recognize a group of undesirables contend with. In my lifetime Nazi storm troops is the worst socialist name you could be call by outside of communist. Thanks for the commit Jimmy.

        • Don 2

          JTG,

          One of your postings praises the Nazi, and another one knocks Israel. We know through history that the Nazis were a bunch of scumbags. You’re not one of those scumbag Nazis, are you?

          • WTS/JAY

            I’m beginning to suspect that maybe Jimmy is a Muslim.

            The Nazi connection to Islamic terrorism…
            http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/nazi_arab.htm

          • Don 2

            You may have something. They did back Hitler.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            Did you ever think that if America stayed out of WW2 that Europe today would not be multicultul crap pit it is today ! There would have been no USSR , no truble in the middle east , The Germans would have brought order to Europe .

          • Don 2

            Kind of tough to stay out of the war when an Axis power attacks Pearl Harbor, and forces you into the war, don’t you think?

            The Germans brought death, destruction, and servitude to the Europeans.

            Hitler really miscalculated at St. Petersburg, and the Soviets kicked their butt through sheer determination. The German army didn’t even have winter uniforms to deal with the harsh Soviet winter. You think that they would have learned something from Napoleon. The Soviets paid the Germans back in spades for their brutality towards the Soviet people.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            If you do a little checking you well find that we caused the japs to attack Pearl Harbor , today we are doing the same thing to Iran , we should be like the Swiss , used to be side with no one , and deal with everyone ,

          • Don 2

            JTG,
            We do agree on something. As our founders warned against, no alliances to defend other countries,

          • Jimmy the Greek

            I am Greek Orthodox !

          • Jimmy the Greek

            There are no more Nazis , As far as israel they are a bunch of scumbags , and they are bleeding America dry , We should have finished israel off when they tried to sink the USS Liberty back in 1967 , If we did the middle east would be peasfull today , One more thing boy if you ever run into my say what you want to say to my face !

          • Don 2

            Wrong JTG, Islam calls for worldwide domination, not just eliminating Israel.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            The jews think any one that is not a jew has no sole , and if you look at what a jew and a muslem bleave it is allmost the same , a muslem is a jew turned inside out .

          • Don 2

            JTG,
            I don’t care that a Jewish person thinks that I have no sole, at least they’re not out to kill me through jihad in the name of Allah, if I do not convert.

          • Native Blood

            If you only knew who really runs this country you would recant what you just said.

        • Merle Dickey

          since he sent 50 million dollars to the muslim black brotherhood I would say we could call him a muslim.

  • agbjr

    “The contest, for ages, has been to rescue Liberty from the grasp of executive power.”

    Daniel Webster
    ***********************************************************************************************
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.”

    James Madison
    ***********************************************************************************************
    “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].”

    Thomas Jefferson

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

    Sheriff Arpaio has a 40 page affidavit from a Hawaiian Forensic Document examiner Reed Hayes, who stated that Obama’s birth certificate is a fabrication and a 100% forgery. The Kenyan Kriminal O´Homobama committed the same crime twice in Maricopa county AZ and in every county in the United States: he ran for U.S. President using a forged birth certificate as a basis of his eligibility and identity.

    • TML

      His Birth Certificate hasn’t even been released for examination. He’s talking about the PDF COPY. *sigh*

      • JeffH

        Do you mean the fraudulant copy that was posted on the WH website?

        • TML

          Yes, the allegedly fraudulent copy that was posted on the WH website. Even if it is proven that questionable anomalies appear in an electronic version, it would still require examination of authenticity on the original document to actually prove anything. And even then – if we really want to get conspiracy minded – I’m quite sure that the highest office in the land to which he has been elected twice, wouldn’t have a problem with presenting a BC that would pass all authenticity checks. The whole idea is chasing a ghost and a waste of time that could be spend fighting him on the real issues.

          • JeffH

            There is nothing “conspiracy minded” about the “admitted fraudulent” Obama birth certificate posted on the WH website.

            A lawyer representing U.S. President Barack Obama has admitted the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House last year is a forgery – but that does not disqualify him from appearing on the ballot this November.

            It ain’t no ghost…if the chase is for the truth!

            Defense attorney Alexandra M. Hill made the comments during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing, brought about by Tea Party members who question his eligibility to appear on the state’s presidential primary ballot. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, argued that President Obama has furnished proof of his “natural born” citizenship status to the state of New Jersey.

            Apuzzo went on to say that Obama’s father was not an American citizen, meaning President Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and ineligible for the office he holds.

            Why would there be a “fake or fraudulent” copy of Obama’s birth certificate put up on the WH website in the first place other than to decieve anyone wanting to look at it? That includes decieving people just like you TML. You’re bright enough to recognize that aren’t you!

          • Don 2

            No JeffH, TML is not bright enough, nor is that other Obama cult follower Jack, even though the State of Hawaii has now admitted that they do not have an Obama birth certificate on file.

          • TML

            Can you give me references to the lawyer who – representing Obama – “admitted” that the long-form birth certificate (the actual long-form document everyone wants to see) submitted to the State of New Jersey, for the proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot, is a forgery? I don’t want to be deceived any more than you do, I’m sure, but as far as I can tell it’s still only an allegation – anomalies in an electronically scanned image, which was then placed into a PDF, and then on the web, is claimed proof of forgery.

            It’s no secret that his father was not a citizen. So obviously the great majority do not subscribe to the “two citizen parents” requirement to be considered “natural born”. The founders failed to define “natural born citizen” so we must ascertain the definition elsewhere in our history. Provided that the Law of Nations greatly influenced many prominent founders, it has been argued as a legitimate source.
            http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html

            The Law of Nations reads, “I say, that, in order to be of the country [natural born], it is necessary that a person be born of a father [singular] who is a citizen” – Law of Nations, § 212. Of the citizens and natives

          • JeffH

            TML, first thing do your own homework…it’s easily available on the internet.

            “Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

            Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.
            ________________________________

            Secondly you have “picked” what is in Law of Nations to satisfy your argument.

            You said: “The Law of Nations reads, “I say, that, in order to be of the country [natural born], it is necessary that a person be born of a father [singular] who is a citizen” – Law of Nations, § 212. Of the citizens and natives”

            Your posting is clearly meant to be deceptive by your post, your boxing of[natural born] and in particular the word [singular]

            This is what was in the text – The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

            This statement refers to citizens only…quite different from this part of the text:

            “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
            Parents is in plural, meaning two or both…not to be confused with one only.

            Remember that Obama’s father was a Kenyan British Subjecy under British Rule, therefore the O’man held dual citizen at birth and therefore was a British Subject first…not and never could be a “natural born citizen .
            __________________________”___________
            Here is the actual text in English:

            § 212. Citizens and natives.

            The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

            ***The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.***

            As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
            The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

            Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

            CHAP. XIX. § 212. Citizens and natives.
            http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
            OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.

          • TML

            My own homework? I’m sorry, the burden of proof rests on those making the claim.

            You’re still talking about “the image of Obama’s birth certificate” and not the actual document.

            Clearly the reference I gave supports the idea that only one citizen who is a parent, is required to be considered “of the country”, a native… natural born. In this case, it states the father… specifically the father, singular, not plural. Which coincides with certain prejudice that are no longer acceptable today (women’s rights to vote didn’t even happen until the 20th century). Unless, of course, you do not think the mother’s citizenship is as viable by itself, or in some way subservient to the father. If you want to prove that, then all I can say is good luck.

          • JeffH

            Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

            Note that there are 4 Supreme Court cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

            Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law.

            Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

            This case concerned Mrs. Minor, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

            The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

            United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

            In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

            “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

            The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year six men sat on the Supreme Court.

            Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

            The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

            WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

            In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

            Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

            “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

            “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

            Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
            the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

            Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

            Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

            Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

          • TML

            These court cases do not stand as law… they are opinions of the court… but still fail to specify one or both parents as a requirement, and simply says “parents” but this is only grammatical to the plural use of the word “children”. Just as I have pointed out that Vattel goes on the be very specific, so too must any court decision. It might be interesting to note that the court case such as the one above openly and intentionally stops short of defining “natural born citizen” because it wasn’t necessary to do so for the ruling of the case at hand.

            And we should also then consider that… if what you say is the fact, then why has no one brought a court case against Obama for failing to meet this criteria? Why are we so focused on the birth certificate if what you’re saying is the fact? Answer… because only one citizen parent is required to be a citizen if born on American soil.

          • JeffH

            TML, get real.

            “And we should also then consider that… if what you say is the fact, then why has no one brought a court case against Obama for failing to meet this criteria?”

            DUH! The politically motivated Judicial system has been rejecting the cases presented to them…that is a fact!

            The perplexity of the birth certificate issue is that it has been Obama’s own refusal to allow the public release of a signed, “vault” copy of his original birth certificate or any other background documents for that matter.
            I really don’t give a rats azz about the birth certificate issue…it’s not pertinent to the “natural born citizen” issue…it’s already acknowledged that Obama’s father was never a US citizen.

            You go on to say that ” Why are we so focused on the birth certificate if what you’re saying is the fact? Answer… because only one citizen parent is required to be a citizen if born on American soil.”

            What is it with you guys…can’t you even distinguish the differences between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”?

            Sheesh, the stupidity that goes in to defending this imposter is unrivaled.

          • TML

            So, the entire judiciary is now in on the conspiracy as well? I would come closer to thinking… just as I am trying to say… that there is no case. And if that isn’t the case and are indeed in on the whole thing… why not hear the case and make a ruling that only one parent is required? The difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen is simply the difference of being a native to the land and being naturalized. I am a native to this land, and it wouldn’t matter if my father was at the time of my birth or not. This is my country. In comparison, a person born here is a citizen regardless of if either parent is a citizen, but to any whom have even one parent that is a citizen of the country, so then is the child a native; “natural born” citizen.

            And I am merely engaging the topic. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m trying to defend what you call an imposter. I don’t like Obama either but I’m not going to agree to something that I don’t agree to simply because of that. The whole birther thing just seems to be built upon the sand. That is all

          • craig

            Sheriff Arpaio of Maricuopa cty AZ had his cold case forensic unit investigate the validity of Obama’s birth certificate. They found without a doubt it is a forged document. You can read for yourself. This is one of many links that have it.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/joe-arpaio-investigation-obama-birth-certificate_n_1315022.html

            If that’s not enough proof then go to this link and see his real birth certificate from Kenya.

            http://wasobamaborninkenya.com/1961%20Kenyan%20Birth%20Certificate%20of%20Barack%20Hussein%20Obama%20II,%20Copy.pdf.

            Maybe your not as informed as you think you are!

          • TML

            Craig says “Sheriff Arpaio of Maricuopa cty AZ had his cold case forensic unit investigate the validity of Obama’s birth certificate. They found without a doubt it is a forged document. You can read for yourself. This is one of many links that have it.”

            Yes we already know that his own forensic unit says the electronic version is not genuine… it’s not the actual document.

            Craig says “If that’s not enough proof then go to this link and see his real birth certificate from Kenya.”

            LoL… and this one is simply accepted as genuine, with not the slightest desire to examine it for authenticity, eh? Damn what a gullible breed

          • craig

            TML your reasoning about his birth certificate is typical of someone who is delusional. You know as much about the origin of Obama’s brth crtfct as I do. but you fail to believe a Sheriff whose credibility is beyond reproach and cannot be denied verses a President who has lied repeatedly to the American people and has be proved numerous times.

            Other than your “built on lies” hatred for conservatives, the only other reason you would deny the proof of the Sheriffs evidence and believe Obama tells the truth is you are one of the many the Bible speaks of in 2Thessalonians 2:10-12. You still can be saved. Just ask Jesus into your heart and repent of you sins.

            I’ll pray for God to lift the delusion from you and then you”ll be able to discern the truth from false doctrine.

            Craig

    • Don 2

      Alondra,
      Mike Zullo gave a presentation last Saturday morning at the Constitutional Sheriff’s and Peace Officers Convention in St. Charles, Missouri regarding new evidence in the birth certificate forgery. Reports are that the lawmen and elected officials were shocked by the new evidence, and jaws dropped. They’re moving forward with the new evidence. It is going to eventually all come out.

    • Merle Dickey

      and why is his Social security number from Connecticut? His college I.D.card has” foreign student “stamped across it? This country has been duped.

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

    U.S. Spy Agency Taps Directly Into Google, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, Apple, Skype, AOL
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-spy-agency-taps-directly-google-facebook-yahoo-youtube-apple-skype-aol

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

    House Panel Moves to Protect Religious Liberty for Military
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/house-panel-moves-protect-religious-liberty-military

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra
  • JIM

    IMPEACH OBAMA AND ABOLISH THE IRS

    • Cole Johnson

      and DHS, the IRS!

  • Peggy

    Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were given to us by brilliant patriots for a reason (which the community organizer and his cohorts would never have the sense to understand!) and they trump anything from the U.N. or our own traitorous leaders.

  • jzandensky

    i don’t understand why signing this is referred to as “madness”. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s calculated backstabbing and well within the goals of the O-Team.

  • ridge runner

    The reason this jug eared muslim sign off on this abortion on paper, is go read his books wruitten with a unrepentant domestic terrorist, Billl Ayers. Obozo beleives in everything that is abhorant to freedoms, praying, thinking, talking, financal transactions, personal messages. Also all this cr-p is approved by the democrat party and its fascist/communist/marxist idiot members. All this has been brought by wimpy rinos, pc’ed editors, media and all of the morons who think not call a spade, is the best way to stop this mind set. Dime to a hole under a dog’s tail non of these beltway crooks/spies including the marxist muslim will ever spend jail time or receive massive fines, like the average Joe or Suzy would! bet Bob Livingston and his staff checkers stop any comments stating what pukes are in Washington and the beltway swamp.,

  • TML

    The treaty isn’t going to happen. As you point out, the majority of the Senate is already against it, and it is impossible for a treaty to go into effect without the two-thirds of the Senate, regardless of what he signs.

    • WTS/JAY

      I think Mr. Wood is just trying to raise awareness and keep us in the loop, TML. Obama’s history of circumventing Congress and thumbing his nose at the Constitution is well documented, and all with the approval of the Senate, it seems.

  • $9913635

    I still have not received my subscription. Ever since I began to describe negroes as negroes and not blacks which is racist Personal Liberty has taken me off their list.

    I hope they are not afraid of being labeled racist by negroes. They should not be afraid. This will be disappointing to me as another conservative site lives in fear of negroes.

  • Sarah

    First of all, I would encourage everyone to actually read the treaty before they get their panties in a bunch. Second, I strongly and without question am in favor of our inalienable rights laid out by our constitution. I do NOT, in any way, support Obama and his left wing extremist views for “loophole” regulation that goes against our second amendment or any other rights.

    Now that that is said, I will say this… If you read the treaty carefully, which is a normal binding contract that should be read more than once, nowhere states that ammunition will be taken away from US citizens (this mostly goes with Ron R and everyone that was fighting earlier in these comments). The objection that I have with this treaty is that it’s language leaves wide interpretation for loopholes which could EVENTUALLY lead to ammunition regulation as well as a national registry. Some examples (directly from the treaty) states:

    ARTICLE 2 of Arms Trade Treaty

    “1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following

    categories:

    (a) Battle tanks;

    (b) Armoured combat vehicles;

    (c) Large-caliber artillery systems;

    (d) Combat aircraft;

    (e) Attack helicopters;

    (f) Warships;

    (g) Missiles and missile launchers; and

    (h) Small arms and light weapons”

    Note the last one about small arms and light weapons. For everyone who can’t put two and two together that is YOUR guns.

    Going further into Article 2

    “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to
    regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.”

    This is discussing export of the ammunition, not regulation within the US for citizen’s ammunition. But again, once can leave room for interpretation and a possible loophole should the Obama administration feel the urge to disregard our rights…

    If you read further it will go on to discussing that anything within the treaty shall not interfere with any state’s laws regarding firearms. It merely lays out groundwork for import and export of weapons into other countries. However, it a strong indicator when North Korea, Syria, and Iran do NOT want to enter into a trade agreement with the rest of the UN regarding arms import and export. Again for those who cannot put two and two together… THESE COUNTRIES HATE THE UNITED STATES AND WOULD GLADLY SELL AND TRADE ARMS THAT COULD DESTROY US!!

    Now with that argument out of the way, I will conclude my rant by stating in the interest of everyone in the United States, we have checks and balances for a reason. The president is deliberately ignoring the majority vote of the senate which votes on any agreement that the United States can or will enter. This contract, cannot be honored without the senate consent and even if it was, the Arms Trade Treaty clearly states in Article 24 that any state can withdraw from the treaty at any time. This means, once we impeach and remove Obama from office for acting without the consent of the senate, we can take our names off the list.

    Anyone who would like to read the Arms Trade Treaty to brush up on their homework can find it here:

    http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_%28As_adopted_by_the_GA%29-E.pdf

    • Vigilant

      Pretty good analysis.

      I would say that one of the unmentioned dangers is the SCOTUS interpretations of any US laws passed in pursuance of this treaty, as unlikely as that may be at the present time.

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg has, in the past, referred to international agreements and legal decisions as a basis for her opinions in SCOTUS cases. As one of the activist justices on the court, she feels no need to confine herself to the Constitution. This alone qualifies her for impeachment if nothing else did.

      She is joined by Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer, all activists who would trash the Constitution at first opportunity. If, during the second half of Obama’s regime, he has the opportunity to replace one of the Constitutionalist justices (Alito, Scalia or Thomas), with an activist justice, you know he will try it.

      If the activists have a clear majority of 5 votes on the court, they would be likely to rule in favor of any measure to further their political agenda, including extraconstitutional annulment of the Second Amendment.

      • JeffH

        The Founders on the dangers of Judicial Activism

        MAINTAINING CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY: A Government of the People

        … Very simply, the Constitutional framers supported judicial review; the Federalist Papers explained it; the ratification debates described it; and legal scholars confirmed it.

        Yet, within judicial review, there were specific things which the Judiciary could not do. For example, laws were to be judged only against the specific, self-evident wording of the Constitution and nothing further. In other words, judicial review had a limited field of inquiry.
        http://www.doctorsenator.com/FoundersonJudicialTyranny.html

    • TML

      Regulating exports is already within the Constitutional power of the Federal Government. We don’t need to reaffirm “the sovereign right of our State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system”, by treaty, to any foreign body. And I would be careful with thinking that because North Korea, Syria, and Iran refuse to enter the treaty, it is necessarily any kind of strong indicator that we should enter the treaty.

    • csaaphill

      You are right on the surface it doesn’t do that, but anyone know you start small then work out the kinks and add when neccessary.
      I’ve read the UN small arms treaty, and yes while it may not say it now give it time. It does call for a central registry which our country can not enforce without violating our second ammendment rights.

    • Merle Dickey

      Sarah, Thank you so much for this information.

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    Chip says — “The United Nations is been a notorious hotbed of anti-American sentiment since the day it was founded”.

    Of course it has been. It was created by Leaders for Leaders. Leaders always strive to feather their own nests and take Freedom from the the rest of us.

    Do you get to even vote for the UN representatives? Of course you don’t. Central Government is hard enough to control even when you do get to vote. Imagine how out-of-control they will get when they are safe from your votes.

    For those who seriously believe that Governments were/are established to protect us (long read but very interesting and enlightening):

    http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf

    • KG

      Von Mises was and still is a facist. Ask anyone who worked for a living in Chilie.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        KG,
        You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
        Ludwig Von Mises stood for voluntary transactions and strict ownership of property. You know, KG, property — that thing which you communists want to take away from others forcefully.
        Imagine that, a group claiming to be downtrodden while at the same time advocating the forceful taking of other peoples’ property. What a bunch of hypocrites.

        • KG

          Ask all of the people in Peru who lost their lives because they believed in the power of the People rather than the Rich elites – those people who lost their lands so massive copper mines could strip the land and force the indigenous people to work in them for pitiful wages to allow the “free market” could work. Von Mises said that he preferred a Nazi revolution over a communist revolution. I guess he hated Jews too.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        Besides that, Communism doesn’t even work. Under Communism the real producers quit producing, and the non-producers certainly don’t start producing. So the net result is a crappy economy where the only real winners are the Leaders (as usual in any Big Government system).
        Communism only appeals to those who are ignorant enough to believe that taking from others will somehow lead to prosperity.

        • Deerinwater

          So why did we bail out Wall Street in Oct. 2008? ~ basically our government Socialized losses and Privatized profits while claiming to be Capitalist and supporters of “Free Enterprise.”

      • DarlK

        I’m assuming that spelling the English language is NOT your greatest atribute. What are you refering to? The country, or the food? You’ve spelled neither correctly. MORON!!

        • Deerinwater

          How about attacking the message? ~ KG claims that Von Mises is a “Facist”.

          Attack the statement and save your Nanny Nanny Poo Poo games for a “simpler audience”.

          • DarlK

            Ludwig von Mises was the leading proponent of laisez faire economics in the past. His writings promote a free economy. Facism is a government controled economy. Businesses may be privately owned but the government dictates production and prices. Von Mises didn’t promote facism at all. It is obvious that most commenting here have never read von Mises, or Keynes or Friedman. I have. Now, I hope that I have explained this in “simplier audience” terms that even you may comprehend.

          • Deerinwater

            Excellent response; Now it’s for KG to do the work and defend his statement. I am not sure where he is going with it and eager to find out.

            I am found somewhat “lacking” on Chilean political history and their strife for democratic government. ~ I am lead to hold the opinion that in recent past , America meddling in their national affair helped to over throw a democratically elected government.

            How this might possibly be connect to KG charge. I for one would like to hear.

        • Merle Dickey

          quick complaining about every ones spelling!! People are upset about what is going on in this country and probably, like me, don’t check their comment before posting sometimes. Concentrate on what is going on in D.C. that is much more important.O.K?

  • gksnana

    This treaty does not need congressional approval because it is against the constitution which makes it null and void.

    • DarlK

      Finally, someone who has actually studied Supreme Court records!

  • go4it

    Faint?

  • csaaphill

    Hear this and hear this well, the EO he signed in March 8th of this year does all he wants.

    • KG

      The EO, or Executive order, that the President signed is almost the same as the one Eisenhower signed in the early 50’s to combat the “communist threat”. It was OK to fight the Reds, but not OK to fight Alquadea?

      • Nance51

        HOW exactly is Obama “fight (ing) Al Quuadea”? The only thing I see his “fighting” is American citizens rights!

        • KG

          Tell me, exactly, what “rights” you have lost since 2008? I would like to know.

          • DarlK

            Hey KGB, why are you still poluting this site? I thought for sure you’d be on your way to Cuba by now. If you don’t have money for a one way ticket, I’m sure there are many loyal American Patriots posting here that would gladly contribute to send you on your way to that Worker’s Paradise of your dreams. AMF!!!

      • https://127.0.0.1/hidden-from-idiots Hussein Hotdawg

        Obama is sending money TO Al Qaeda. Please acquaint yourself with current events prior to embarrassing yourself. You always have the “I was hacked” line to use when you embarrass yourself, again.

        • KG

          We should have done that in 1988, when the Soviets pulled out. But, as always, what did the ‘patriots’ do? They went to sleep. So much for America to be the beacon of liberty.

          If it keeps them from attacking again, then it would be worth it. But,I think you are lying anyway. BTW, what about the cocaine money Oliver North gave the ‘contras’ to kill priests and civilians with? Oh, I’m sorry. That was some truth that “the biased liberal media” reported on and was seen as “communist propaganda” by the conservatives.

          • https://127.0.0.1/hidden-from-idiots Hussein Hotdawg

            Like all terrorists, you advocate giving guns to foreign regimes and entities because you are a bloodthirsty lunatic. A superior mind does not advocate arming any foreigners regardless of politic… inferior minds seek excuses for those they support doing it.

            You now have my permission to claim your most recent embarrassing remarks were the resort of the child next door hacking your mommy’s wifi :-)

          • KG

            So Independent Tom , why do you keep voting for people with “inferior minds”? That explains it. Ronald Raygun had Alzheimers. And ‘W’s brain was in another body – Karl Rove. Now, I see why ‘patriots’ like you keep voting Republican.

            Thanks for the tip!

          • https://127.0.0.1/hidden-from-idiots Hussein Hotdawg

            Didn’t vote for any of them nor am I a republican… of course, being zero for four is probably the highest score you’ve had in a while :-) *pats KG*

            Btw, when did Rove run for office? *laughing*

          • KG

            I voted for every winning president except Raygun and Bush2. I turned 18 in 1987 and was fooled by the ads that portrayed Dukakis as a ‘want-to-be’ commander in chief. Then I learned that Dukakis was actually IN the military. It was then I resolved to never vote Republican again.

            And Rove has been helping Conservative candidates since 1974. So, in essence, every candidate he was advising was a candidate for HIS ideas. So, he’s been running for office for a long time.

          • https://127.0.0.1/hidden-from-idiots Hussein Hotdawg

            What you really mean to say is that you have always been grossly misinformed and you continue that tradition today. You either thought Rove actually ran for President or you tried to bluff; either way, your attempt to misdirect from your ignorance only made you appear more so.

          • Nance51

            KG – While I will not disagree with you on Carl Rove, as I’m no fan of his, I find your own inability to weigh a candidate against Constitutional values in protection of what our country stands for a bit more than suspicious, to say the least. It is obvious you are married to the Democratic party as opposed to our country and protecting her long held values.
            Other than stating that, I won’t waste my time by coming back to reply to your closed-mindedness again.

          • KG

            “…to weigh a candidate against Constitutional values in protection of what our country stands for …

            Umm…ever actually READ the constitution? If I hear a candidate that stands for these values, I vote for them:

            We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

            Most conservatives HATE this part because it shows their hypocrisy of values they CLAIM to have. As long as Republicans keep trying to take away peoples rights instead of preserving them, I will never vote for them.

          • Nance51

            Okay @KG, you got me back in here for just a minute. Yes, to answer your question about the Constitutional and more recently a brush-up course from Hillsdale College on Constitutional courses. I don’t know where you’re getting your dis-information about what “Conservatives HATE”, but your are dead wrong! While, no doubt, the Republican party has been infiltrated and we are attempting to weed it out before it becomes a complete take-over like the Democratic party had been, there is that to deal with. I can assure you, ALL TRUE Conservatives LOVE our Constitution and I cannot fathom what part of that clause you think ANY Conservative “HATES”. We live and breathe it!

          • KG

            Stephan Molyneau, a ‘libertarian’, explained the dilemma when he said “…it’s not about freedom, it’s about morality.” It struck me in his stark revelation. I mean Hitler had morals, Mussolini had morals, Pinochet had morals. I want to know “Whose ‘morality?”

            Modern ‘conservatives’ are like the duck that picked up a book and everyone thought he was smart, but the duck never even read the book. It’s the same for Republicans. They have no problem TAKING rights if they feel it ‘morally’ necessary. Taking away my right to collectively organize workers in to a union is OK, but don’t ever bring up taxing churches “gift of the month.”

  • ONTIME

    He will sign this TP and then he can wipe his backside with it, he is not a qualified anything…it still will need to be ratified and these congress people are not going to be safe at night if they let this through…it is impossible to enforce this law without declaring civil war…

  • bushmaster

    He can sign what ever the hell he wants,I will not comply.This muslim pice of trash can go straight to hell.Dose can not be infringed mean nothing to this bastard.

    • Elton Robb

      Relinquish your consent to be governed. You’ll be called an modern anti-federalist, but what the hay. We have the right to relinquish our consent to be governed . . . as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3057/can-i-avoid-paying-a-tax-bill-by-writing-accepted-for-value-on-it — this guy doesn’t understand that Government in this country can only govern by the consent of the people.

      • me

        The consent of the people don’t matter anymore. the government has gave themselves so mush power they have become something like royalty over the people, the un gun treaty is an example of this. too bad this country has so many people whare fooled in elections. then we have all these people who don’t even care. on election day they just sit on their uncaring butts. They seem to think nothing will make any difference if they vote. WRONG. the vote can beat the buck. Its our right. things could change if everyone got out and voted smart.

        • Seanoamericano

          It dont matter who you vote for when the two sides of the same coin. The only guy who was an opposing view was ron paul . You see how much dirty pool was played to keep him out.

    • https://127.0.0.1/hidden-from-idiots Hussein Hotdawg

      You won’t have to comply… without 67 senators signing off on it, it is mere toilet paper.

  • csaaphill

    kg Now tell me this has anything to do with fighting alquida or the REDS!

    whol text with some of my highlighting and bolding of text from that EO I’m talking about. This does the exact thing the UN arms treaty does.

    By the authority vested in me as
    President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including
    the Arms Export Control Act, as
    amended (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) (the “Act”), and section
    301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Delegation of Functions. The following functions
    conferred upon the President by the Act, and related laws, are delegated as
    follows:

    (a) Those under section 3 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2753), with the exception of subsections (a)(1), (b), (c)(3),
    (c)(4), and (f) (22 U.S.C. 2753(a)(1), (b), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (f)), to the
    Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, in the implementation of the
    delegated functions under sections 3(a) and (d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2753(a)
    and (d)), is authorized to find, in the case of a proposed transfer of a
    defense article or related training or other defense service by a foreign
    country or international organization not otherwise eligible under section
    3(a)(1) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2753(a)(1)), whether the proposed transfer will
    strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace. {Or in other words a New world Order}

    (b) Those under section 5 (22 U.S.C. 2755) to the Secretary of State.
    ERIC HOLDER

    (c) Those under section 21 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2761), with the exception of the last sentence of subsection
    (d) and all of subsection (i) (22 U.S.C. 2761(d) and (i)), to the Secretary
    of Defense.

    (d) Those under sections 22(a),
    29, 30, and 30A of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2762(a), 2769, 2770, and 2770a) to the
    Secretary of Defense.

    (e) Those under section 23 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2763), and under section 7069 of the Department of State,
    Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law
    112-74, Division I) and any subsequently enacted provision of law that is the
    same or substantially the same, to the Secretary of Defense to be exercised
    in consultation with the Secretary of State and, other than the last sentence
    of section 23(a) (22 U.S.C. 2763(a)), in consultation with the Secretary of
    the Treasury, except that the President shall determine any rate of interest
    to be charged that is less than the market rate of interest.

    (f) Those under sections 24 and 27 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2764 and
    2767) to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall consult
    with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury in implementing
    the delegated functions under section 24 (22 U.S.C. 2764) and with the
    Secretary of State in implementing the delegated functions under section 27
    (22 U.S.C. 2767).

    (g) Those under section 25 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2765) to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of Defense
    shall assist the Secretary of State in the preparation of materials for
    presentation to the Congress under that section.

    (h) Those under section 34 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2774) to the Secretary of State. To the extent the standards
    and criteria for credit and guaranty transactions are based upon national
    security or financial policies, the Secretary of State shall obtain the prior
    concurrence of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury,
    respectively.

    (i) Those under section 35(a) of
    the Act (22 U.S.C. 2775(a)) to the Secretary of State.

    (j) Those under sections 36(a) and
    36(b)(1) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(a) and (b)(1)), except with respect to
    the certification of an emergency as provided by subsection (b)(1) (22 U.S.C.
    2776(b)(1)), to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense, in the
    implementation of the delegated functions under sections 36(a) and (b)(1) (22
    U.S.C. 2776(a) and (b)(1)), shall consult with the Secretary of State. With
    respect to those functions under sections 36(a)(5) and (6) (22 U.S.C.
    2776(a)(5) and (6)), the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Director
    of the Office of Management and Budget.

    (k) Those under section 36(b)(1)
    with respect to the certification of an emergency as provided by subsection
    (b)(1) and under sections 36(c) and (d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1),
    (c), and (d)) to the Secretary of State.

    (l) Those under section 36(f)(1)
    of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(f)(1)) to the Secretary of Defense.

    (m) Those under sections 36(f)(2)
    and (f)(3) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(f)(2) and (f)(3)) to the Secretary of
    State.

    (n) Those under section 38 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) to:

    (i) the Secretary of State, except
    as otherwise provided in this subsection. Designations, including changes in
    designations, by the Secretary of State of items or categories of items that
    shall be considered as defense articles and defense services subject to export control under section 38 (22 U.S.C. 2778)
    shall have the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. The authority to
    undertake activities to ensure compliance with established export conditions
    may be redelegated to the Secretary of Defense, or to the head of another
    executive department or agency as appropriate, who shall exercise such
    functions in consultation with the Secretary of State;

    Kind of like Fast and Furious?

    (ii) the Attorney General, to the extent they relate to the control of the
    permanent import of defense articles and defense services. In carrying out
    such functions, the Attorney General shall be guided by the views of the
    Secretary of State on matters affecting world peace, {NWO}and the
    external security and foreign policy of the United States. Designations,
    including changes in designations, by the Attorney General of items or
    categories of items that shall be considered as defense articles and defense
    services subject to permanent import control under section 38 of the Act (22
    U.S.C. 2778) shall be made with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and
    the Secretary of Defense and with notice to the Secretary of Commerce; and

    (iii) the Department of State for the registration and licensing of
    those persons who engage in the business of brokering activities with respect
    to defense articles or defense services controlled either for purposes of
    export by the Department of State or for purposes of permanent import by the
    Department of Justice.

    (o) Those under section 39(b) of
    the Act (22 U.S.C. 2779(b)) to the Secretary of State. In carrying out such
    functions, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Secretary of Defense
    as may be necessary to avoid interference in the application of Department of
    Defense regulations to sales made under section 22 of the Act (22 U.S.C.
    2762).

    (p) Those under the portion of
    section 40A of the Act added by Public Law 104-164 (22 U.S.C. 2785), to the
    Secretary of State insofar as they relate to commercial exports licensed
    under the Act, and to the Secretary of Defense insofar as they relate to
    defense articles and defense services sold, leased, or transferred under the
    Foreign Military Sales Program.

    (q) Those under the portion of
    section 40A of the Act added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
    Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132) (22 U.S.C. 2781), to the Secretary of State.

    (r) Those under sections 42(c) and
    (f) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2791(c) and (f)) to the Secretary of Defense. The
    Secretary of Defense shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State
    and the Secretary of Commerce on any determination considered under the
    authority of section 42(c) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2791(c)).

    (s) Those under section 52(b) of
    the Act (22 U.S.C. 2795a(b)) to the Secretary of Defense.

    (t) Those under sections 61 and
    62(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 2796a(a)) to the Secretary of Defense.

    (u) Those under section 2(b)(6) of
    the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(6)) to the
    Secretary of State.

    Sec. 2. Coordination. (a) In addition to the specific
    provisions of section 1 of this order, the Secretary of State and the
    Secretary of Defense, in carrying out the functions delegated to them under
    this order, shall consult with each other and with the heads of other
    executive departments and agencies on matters pertaining to their
    responsibilities.

    (b) Under the direction of the
    President and in accordance with section 2(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2752(b)),
    the Secretary of State, taking into account other United States activities
    abroad, shall be responsible for the continuous supervision and general
    direction of sales and exports under the Act, including the negotiation,
    conclusion, and termination of international agreements, and determining
    whether there shall be a sale to a country and the amount thereof, and
    whether there shall be delivery or other performance under such sale or
    export, to the end that sales and exports are integrated with other United
    States activities and the foreign policy of the United States is best served
    thereby.

    Sec. 3. Allocation of Funds. Funds appropriated to the
    President for carrying out the Act shall be deemed to be allocated to the
    Secretary of Defense without any further action of the President.

    Sec. 4. Revocation. Executive Order 11958 of January 18,
    1977, as amended, is revoked; except that, to the extent consistent with this
    order, all determinations, authorizations, regulations, rulings,
    certificates, orders, directives, contracts, agreements, and other actions made,
    issued, taken, or entered into under the provisions of Executive Order 11958,
    as amended, and not revoked, superseded, or otherwise made inapplicable,
    shall continue in full force and effect until amended, modified, or
    terminated by appropriate authority.

    Sec. 5. Delegation of Functions under the International
    Emergency Economic Powers Act. Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001,
    is amended as follows:

    (a) Redesignate section 4 as
    section 6.

    (b) Insert the following new
    sections 4 and 5 after section 3:

    “Sec. 4. The Secretary
    of Commerce shall, to the extent required as a matter of statute or
    regulation, establish appropriate procedures for when Congress is to be
    notified of the export of firearms
    that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce under the
    Export Administration Regulations and that are controlled for purposes of permanent import by the Attorney
    General under section 38(a) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
    2778(a)) and appropriate procedures for when Congress is to be notified of
    the export of Major Defense Equipment controlled for purposes of permanent
    export under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce.

    Sec. 5. (a) The Secretary
    of State is hereby authorized to take such actions and to employ those powers
    granted to the President by the Act as may be necessary to license or
    otherwise approve the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to
    the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce as agreed to by the Secretary
    of State and the Secretary of Commerce.

    (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a)
    of this section, items licensed or otherwise approved by the Secretary of
    State pursuant to this section remain subject to the jurisdiction of the
    Department of Commerce.”

    Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order
    shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) the authority granted by law
    to an agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii) the functions of the Director
    of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative,
    or legislative proposals.

    (b) This order shall be
    implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of
    appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to,
    and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
    enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
    departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or
    any other person.

    BARACK OBAMA

    The White House,

    March 8, 2013.

    NOTE: This Executive order was published in the Federal
    Register on March 13.

    Citation: Barack
    Obama: “Executive Order 13637 – Administration of Reformed Export
    Controls,” March 8, 2013. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The
    American Presidency Project.
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=103336.

    /**************************/
    var pageName = ‘Executive Order 13637 – Administration of Reformed Export Controls';
    var pagePresident = ’44′;
    var pagePID = ‘103336’;
    /**************************/
    var qs=’?pnm=’+escape(pageName)+’&ref=’+escape(document.referrer)+’&statspres=’+escape(pagePresident)+’&statsdoc=’+escape(pagePID)+’&lang=';
    if(navigator.systemLanguage!=undefined){qs+=escape(navigator.systemLanguage);}
    else{qs+=escape(navigator.language);};qs+=’&brw=’+escape(navigator.userAgent);
    qs+=’&ver=’+escape(navigator.appVersion)+’&plat=’+escape(navigator.platform);
    if(navigator.appVersion.substring(0,1)>=4){qs+=’&clr=’+escape(screen.colorDepth);
    qs+=’&scrw=’+escape(screen.width)+’&scrh=’+escape(screen.height);
    qs+=’&jav=’+escape(navigator.javaEnabled());};
    document.write(”);

  • csaaphill

    By the authority vested in me as
    President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including
    the Arms Export Control Act, as
    amended (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) (the “Act”), and section
    301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Delegation of Functions. The following functions
    conferred upon the President by the Act, and related laws, are delegated as
    follows:

    (a) Those under section 3 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2753), with the exception of subsections (a)(1), (b), (c)(3),
    (c)(4), and (f) (22 U.S.C. 2753(a)(1), (b), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (f)), to the
    Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, in the implementation of the
    delegated functions under sections 3(a) and (d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2753(a)
    and (d)), is authorized to find, in the case of a proposed transfer of a
    defense article or related training or other defense service by a foreign
    country or international organization not otherwise eligible under section
    3(a)(1) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2753(a)(1)), whether the proposed transfer will
    strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace. {Or in other words a New world Order}

    (b) Those under section 5 (22 U.S.C. 2755) to the Secretary of State.
    ERIC HOLDER

    (c) Those under section 21 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2761), with the exception of the last sentence of subsection
    (d) and all of subsection (i) (22 U.S.C. 2761(d) and (i)), to the Secretary
    of Defense.

    (d) Those under sections 22(a),
    29, 30, and 30A of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2762(a), 2769, 2770, and 2770a) to the
    Secretary of Defense.

    (e) Those under section 23 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2763), and under section 7069 of the Department of State,
    Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law
    112-74, Division I) and any subsequently enacted provision of law that is the
    same or substantially the same, to the Secretary of Defense to be exercised
    in consultation with the Secretary of State and, other than the last sentence
    of section 23(a) (22 U.S.C. 2763(a)), in consultation with the Secretary of
    the Treasury, except that the President shall determine any rate of interest
    to be charged that is less than the market rate of interest.

    (f) Those under sections 24 and 27 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2764 and
    2767) to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall consult
    with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury in implementing
    the delegated functions under section 24 (22 U.S.C. 2764) and with the
    Secretary of State in implementing the delegated functions under section 27
    (22 U.S.C. 2767).

    (g) Those under section 25 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2765) to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of Defense
    shall assist the Secretary of State in the preparation of materials for
    presentation to the Congress under that section.

    (h) Those under section 34 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2774) to the Secretary of State. To the extent the standards
    and criteria for credit and guaranty transactions are based upon national
    security or financial policies, the Secretary of State shall obtain the prior
    concurrence of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury,
    respectively.

    (i) Those under section 35(a) of
    the Act (22 U.S.C. 2775(a)) to the Secretary of State.

    (j) Those under sections 36(a) and
    36(b)(1) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(a) and (b)(1)), except with respect to
    the certification of an emergency as provided by subsection (b)(1) (22 U.S.C.
    2776(b)(1)), to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense, in the
    implementation of the delegated functions under sections 36(a) and (b)(1) (22
    U.S.C. 2776(a) and (b)(1)), shall consult with the Secretary of State. With
    respect to those functions under sections 36(a)(5) and (6) (22 U.S.C.
    2776(a)(5) and (6)), the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Director
    of the Office of Management and Budget.

    (k) Those under section 36(b)(1)
    with respect to the certification of an emergency as provided by subsection
    (b)(1) and under sections 36(c) and (d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1),
    (c), and (d)) to the Secretary of State.

    (l) Those under section 36(f)(1)
    of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(f)(1)) to the Secretary of Defense.

    (m) Those under sections 36(f)(2)
    and (f)(3) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(f)(2) and (f)(3)) to the Secretary of
    State.

    (n) Those under section 38 of the
    Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) to:

    (i) the Secretary of State, except
    as otherwise provided in this subsection. Designations, including changes in
    designations, by the Secretary of State of items or categories of items that
    shall be considered as defense articles and defense services subject to export control under section 38 (22 U.S.C. 2778)
    shall have the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. The authority to
    undertake activities to ensure compliance with established export conditions
    may be redelegated to the Secretary of Defense, or to the head of another
    executive department or agency as appropriate, who shall exercise such
    functions in consultation with the Secretary of State;

    Kind of like Fast and Furious?

    (ii) the Attorney General, to the extent they relate to the control of the
    permanent import of defense articles and defense services. In carrying out
    such functions, the Attorney General shall be guided by the views of the
    Secretary of State on matters affecting world peace, {NWO}and the
    external security and foreign policy of the United States. Designations,
    including changes in designations, by the Attorney General of items or
    categories of items that shall be considered as defense articles and defense
    services subject to permanent import control under section 38 of the Act (22
    U.S.C. 2778) shall be made with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and
    the Secretary of Defense and with notice to the Secretary of Commerce; and

    (iii) the Department of State for the registration and licensing of
    those persons who engage in the business of brokering activities with respect
    to defense articles or defense services controlled either for purposes of
    export by the Department of State or for purposes of permanent import by the
    Department of Justice.

    (o) Those under section 39(b) of
    the Act (22 U.S.C. 2779(b)) to the Secretary of State. In carrying out such
    functions, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Secretary of Defense
    as may be necessary to avoid interference in the application of Department of
    Defense regulations to sales made under section 22 of the Act (22 U.S.C.
    2762).

    (p) Those under the portion of
    section 40A of the Act added by Public Law 104-164 (22 U.S.C. 2785), to the
    Secretary of State insofar as they relate to commercial exports licensed
    under the Act, and to the Secretary of Defense insofar as they relate to
    defense articles and defense services sold, leased, or transferred under the
    Foreign Military Sales Program.

    (q) Those under the portion of
    section 40A of the Act added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
    Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132) (22 U.S.C. 2781), to the Secretary of State.

    (r) Those under sections 42(c) and
    (f) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2791(c) and (f)) to the Secretary of Defense. The
    Secretary of Defense shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State
    and the Secretary of Commerce on any determination considered under the
    authority of section 42(c) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2791(c)).

    (s) Those under section 52(b) of
    the Act (22 U.S.C. 2795a(b)) to the Secretary of Defense.

    (t) Those under sections 61 and
    62(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 2796a(a)) to the Secretary of Defense.

    (u) Those under section 2(b)(6) of
    the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(6)) to the
    Secretary of State.

    Sec. 2. Coordination. (a) In addition to the specific
    provisions of section 1 of this order, the Secretary of State and the
    Secretary of Defense, in carrying out the functions delegated to them under
    this order, shall consult with each other and with the heads of other
    executive departments and agencies on matters pertaining to their
    responsibilities.

    (b) Under the direction of the
    President and in accordance with section 2(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2752(b)),
    the Secretary of State, taking into account other United States activities
    abroad, shall be responsible for the continuous supervision and general
    direction of sales and exports under the Act, including the negotiation,
    conclusion, and termination of international agreements, and determining
    whether there shall be a sale to a country and the amount thereof, and
    whether there shall be delivery or other performance under such sale or
    export, to the end that sales and exports are integrated with other United
    States activities and the foreign policy of the United States is best served
    thereby.

    Sec. 3. Allocation of Funds. Funds appropriated to the
    President for carrying out the Act shall be deemed to be allocated to the
    Secretary of Defense without any further action of the President.

    Sec. 4. Revocation. Executive Order 11958 of January 18,
    1977, as amended, is revoked; except that, to the extent consistent with this
    order, all determinations, authorizations, regulations, rulings,
    certificates, orders, directives, contracts, agreements, and other actions made,
    issued, taken, or entered into under the provisions of Executive Order 11958,
    as amended, and not revoked, superseded, or otherwise made inapplicable,
    shall continue in full force and effect until amended, modified, or
    terminated by appropriate authority.

    Sec. 5. Delegation of Functions under the International
    Emergency Economic Powers Act. Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001,
    is amended as follows:

    (a) Redesignate section 4 as
    section 6.

    (b) Insert the following new
    sections 4 and 5 after section 3:

    “Sec. 4. The Secretary
    of Commerce shall, to the extent required as a matter of statute or
    regulation, establish appropriate procedures for when Congress is to be
    notified of the export of firearms
    that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce under the
    Export Administration Regulations and that are controlled for purposes of permanent import by the Attorney
    General under section 38(a) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
    2778(a)) and appropriate procedures for when Congress is to be notified of
    the export of Major Defense Equipment controlled for purposes of permanent
    export under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce.

    Sec. 5. (a) The Secretary
    of State is hereby authorized to take such actions and to employ those powers
    granted to the President by the Act as may be necessary to license or
    otherwise approve the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to
    the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce as agreed to by the Secretary
    of State and the Secretary of Commerce.

    (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a)
    of this section, items licensed or otherwise approved by the Secretary of
    State pursuant to this section remain subject to the jurisdiction of the
    Department of Commerce.”

    Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order
    shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) the authority granted by law
    to an agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii) the functions of the Director
    of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative,
    or legislative proposals.

    (b) This order shall be
    implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of
    appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to,
    and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
    enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
    departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or
    any other person.

    BARACK OBAMA

    The White House,

    March 8, 2013.

    NOTE: This Executive order was published in the Federal
    Register on March 13.

    Citation: Barack
    Obama: “Executive Order 13637 – Administration of Reformed Export
    Controls,” March 8, 2013. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The
    American Presidency Project.
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=103336.

    /**************************/
    var pageName = ‘Executive Order 13637 – Administration of Reformed Export Controls';
    var pagePresident = ’44′;
    var pagePID = ‘103336’;
    /**************************/
    var qs=’?pnm=’+escape(pageName)+’&ref=’+escape(document.referrer)+’&statspres=’+escape(pagePresident)+’&statsdoc=’+escape(pagePID)+’&lang=';
    if(navigator.systemLanguage!=undefined){qs+=escape(navigator.systemLanguage);}
    else{qs+=escape(navigator.language);};qs+=’&brw=’+escape(navigator.userAgent);
    qs+=’&ver=’+escape(navigator.appVersion)+’&plat=’+escape(navigator.platform);
    if(navigator.appVersion.substring(0,1)>=4){qs+=’&clr=’+escape(screen.colorDepth);
    qs+=’&scrw=’+escape(screen.width)+’&scrh=’+escape(screen.height);
    qs+=’&jav=’+escape(navigator.javaEnabled());};
    document.write(”);

  • Deerinwater

    Huckabee is a buffoon. ~ an ambulance chaser .

    Why speak of things that will never happen as if they could. ~ The wind blows free! ~ Why waste breath ~ to set up an argument that would permit you to say things that imply Liberal are less morally superior than Thee? Because Huckbee is a button Pusher that would divide the party over some brain fart notion that would never fly.

    That is Huchabee argument! ~ Can I get an Amen on that ?

    The Catholic Church would never approve of such a notion in a million years,

    Huckbee is a button Pusher that would divide the party over some brain fart notion that would never fly and why he is irrelevant today ~ He believe this sort of brain fart might make him be seen as relevant again.

    Huckabee knows that there is enough pious , self righteous idiots that will agree with him ~ to get some press and the attention that he craves so bad.

    My personal feeling on his idea ~ is somewhat different however. ~ I think that it’s a good idea. ~~ but it’s just not going to happen and there is no need to go there.

    • mrsgunnut10

      Deerinwater, you evidently do not know Governor “Huck”. He is a fine person that cares for ALL American Citizens and most of the World Population, bar none. By the way, I read this Article twice and did not see where any comments were made by the Governor. Thank you for your time. TSgt., USAF Retired.

      • Deerinwater

        Misplaced posting . ~ Sorry. ~ He might well be all the things that you say. ~ while I find some of his methods short-sided as his need for “loot” to advance himself places him in compromising positions and in the political “Back Forthy Wasteland”. ~ I see him as a milder version of Rick Santorum. A good family man with good intention and best kept at a local level. National politics is for major carnivorous that appeal too and operate a long game on a national level.

        Taxing Churches might well allow church affiliations to be more directly in opening their purse and support candidates of their choice on some level. ~~ But it will never happen! NEVER! EVER!

        This a perfect example of Huckabee ‘s understanding and addressing problems and solving them. ~ Narrow and limited!

        That Huckabee would consider opening a closed door that has separated Church and State would be like a camel sticking his head in your “tent”. ~~ in short time ~ the whole camel would be in your tent.

        Never mind the fact of all the good work that “Churches” do around the Globe would now be less for having to pay a TAX.

        I doubt if anyone knows the actual combined holdings of the Catholic church ~ but i would speculate ~ it’s combined wealth would exceed that of the most wealthiest people on earth today.

        To think that the Catholic church might just lay-down and accept a Tax imposed on it’s holding is a foolish notion ~~ even for a Baptist to consider !

        It was various Clergymen of the Catholic church that aided Nazis war criminals to avoid capture after the war and escape to Argentina and hide for 15 years. A network of safe houses was created by operatives of the Catholic church from Germany to Argentina. ~

        Churches are already in our “Government” ~ at all levels.

        If Huckabee thinks that paying taxes might give the Protestant , “born again” Christian a “leg up” in effecting change on the national or world stage ~ he needs to go soak his head.

        How about these Tea Party members that wish to donate to political causes ~ just “DO IT” ~ without expecting a tax write off ~ like all the rest of us “Little People”?

        Huckabee ~ is the “Deputy Barney Fife ” of Right Wing Political Line-up of Players ~ in my opinion. ~ Away’s way over his head when he leaves Arkansas.

    • jaybird

      I am confused about the mention of the Gov. and the ramblings.

      • Deerinwater

        Hmm? ~ me too! ~ a misplaced posting Jay. ~ not sure how i managed it???

  • wandamurline

    Obama can sign it if he wants to, but unfortunately for him, it is not a binding legal treaty until it is ratified by 2/3ths of the Senate, so why would he sign something that is not binding? I don’t know….I guess it is the Demigod fixation that he has.

    • Nance51

      There’s one thing you’re forgetting here. He’s already signed his Executive Order that suspends the Constitution in the event that, in Bidens’ words, “will be of their (our) own making”.
      When you consider the fact that they’ve already been disarming citizens as much as they possibly could as things are by buying up all the ammo, he’s increased the chances for his person army (DHS, NSA or whatever else you want to call them), along with already having brought in a good number of UN troops and tanks.

    • me

      Knowing the dumbass, him and the buttkissing Democratic senate would try to get it thru. There is probly come democrat senators who wouldn”te sign it because outdoorsmen hunting puts tons of money back into the state. where do the anti-gunners think wildlife funds come from. gun owning hunters. i wonder if there is any petitions going around to remove the USA from the UN. I’d sign in a heartbeat.

    • Legatus legionis

      Any treaty that abrogates, or changes the Bill of Rights is not enforceable…Supreme Court Decision, Reid v. Covert. However, that does not mean that the Federal Government will not act to enforce the provisions of this treaty anyway. Lets not panic in any event. Instead, lets be patient, compile our data bases of traitors, and pray for people’s trials to give the traitors what they sew!

      • https://127.0.0.1/hidden-from-idiots Hussein Hotdawg

        It isn’t a treaty, without 67 senators, it is only good for wiping.

  • mrsgunnut10

    So “Hanoi John” loves the idea that the United Nations will do away with our Second Amendment. Hell, Kerry hasn’t changed a damn bit since his Vietnam Days. He has his fake Star that makes him look like a War Hero, even that is not true. His Commander said he did not sign the Paper Work for Kerry’s Medal. That leaves Kerry the sole, illegal, master of deception. If you could look at his original DD-214, his actual discharge from the Military, and compare it with Kerry’s copy, you will be able to note that there is no Order Number on Kerry’s Copy of his dd-214. Now back to the 2nd Amendment, it is true that Obama’s signature will not be worth the paper it is written on, unless, the Senate ratifies the Treaty. Right now with the Senate full of “Obama Butt Kissers” it just might be Ratified, unless “WE THE PEOPLE” do not contact our Elected Senators an threaten them if they sign that Treaty. What Threaten means, is up to the People of the individual States that have a Senator that does not value his ability to stay healthy. Call all of your Senators and voice your opinion that thay had better not sign on the dotted line. Thank you for your time. TSgt., USAF Retired.

  • Nance51

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but as for me, it is QUITE OBVIOUS they are and have been laying the ground work for some master plan since day 1. For the guy that commented that Obama is fighting Al Quida, boy are you easily deceived. The only “fight” is against American citizens all the while leaving our men and women in Muslim countries getting killed and, at this point for no reason whatsoever other than to get killed!
    I am SO ANGRY at the number of our troops that have been killed and maimed since he’s taken office with practically little more than a bleep of a mention on the news screen – by ANYONE!
    That being said, during the election, attempting to post ANY Conservative political comment on FB was next to impossible. It was obvious to me I was not only being watched, but comments controlled. Call me paranoid if you want – many did and I could care less as I know what I know. All of my comments about that were way before any of what was actually happening came out.
    Now we learn that not only was the NSA doing God only knows what, but also that there was a secretive back room at DNC campaign headquarters that were hacking into peoples computers to “control the message”. As for me, I’m already feeling a bit like I’m now in a Communist country even wondering what is safe to say in your own home since we’ve heard them admit they can open up and listen to or watch you in any room in your house where your computer, TV, phone, security system, and much more if you have a smart house and/or even appliances. I feel VIOLATED!

  • securityman

    how can you fight alquada if you are on friendly terms with them. he is in the process of arming them right now. do you really think the syiarn rebels well keep the weapons out of their hands when they are fighting with them. if they weren’t with them then they wouldn’t be in the pics with McCain. all I know at this point is, when obummer brings all his muslim bros in and tells us to give up our guns then I will give up what I’ve loaded in my guns.

  • Chester

    One little statement on this. It takes sixty-seven senators to approve this, NOT the sixty needed to override a veto. Think about that for a minute, then tell me, honestly, that sixty-seven members of our current senate can even agree on the time of day. Without senate approval, that treaty is just so much paper.

    • Joe Fields

      That is a reassuring thought, now, surely the rest of the country will see what ozero really is!!………… (nay, I’m sorry, I just lost my mind for a moment))

      • MargaretJacobson

        Don’t worry OBAMA and Biden lost theirs !! They just haven’t found them !! The are just beyond help !!

  • https://127.0.0.1/hidden-from-idiots Hussein Hotdawg

    It will make nice toilet paper since that is all it will be worth without a 2/3+1 ratification from the senate.

  • Lucy and Ricky

    Of course Obama is ignoring the Senate. He does whatever the hell he wants without any consideration for us.

    • MargaretJacobson

      Take away Air Force 1 !!

  • JoeySasa

    He CAN sign it, no one can prevent him from doing that. But that treaty won’t be valid in the US UNTIL it is ratified by the Senate, with a 67 vote in favor… which is EXTREMLEY unlikely. So no worries

    • MargaretJacobson

      Democrats and rhinos in the senate!!

  • Jeffrey T

    Everyone write their state reps& tell them YOUR SICK OF THE BS IN DC!! Also JOIN TOGETHER!! WERE STRONGER UNITED THAN AS 1 ! All the bitching & complaining on here makes everyone FEEL GOODV but itv ACOMPLISHES NADA!! ZIP! I e- mail, & twitter my reps as well as other reps who seem to want to uphold the constitution! I have already gotten 3 phone calls from DC because im such a PITA !! They especialy were bent about my NO PAYING TAXES UNTILL DC IS FIXED!! That would shut them down!! The IRS USING OUR MONEY FOR PLAYING IS INFURIATING!! & FURHER OBAMAS BLATANT DISREGUARD OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE!! Hide your guns!! Your gonna need them!! DHS HAS BEEN GEARING UP TO PUT US DOWN!! ANYONE SEEN AS AN AGITATOR WILL DISSAPEAR! The NSA IS LOOKING AT EVERYWORD WE SAY ON HERE!! The US Citizen who believes in the CONSTITUTION IS SEEN AS THE ENEMY!! Not Furher Obamas Moozlum terrorist friends!! Read history !! The same thing is happening now as in 1930s Germany!! Most people on here already know the truth! But tell your friends!! Educate them against Furher Obama !

  • ted

    I think if the congress signs this and goes along with our traitor president you will see a civil war, maybe not , but don’t count on us giving up our guns at all .

  • WiSe GuY

    Start stocking up on Saturday Night Specials.

  • Rocketman

    If Obama is stupid and arrogant enough to try to implement a law that has not gone through proper channels because he knows that he never would have the votes to approve it, he’s clearly violating the Constitution and his oath of office which is an impeachable offense. Let him sign it and that will give the congress and senate all the proof that they need to impeach him.

    • me

      Unfortunately i think he doesn’t give a damn .He is the new world Hitler.

      • MargaretJacobson

        A Muslim , hitler wanna be !! A president for life ?? Head of the United Nations !!

    • sal valino

      That may be the proof to impeach him but the house and senate
      don’t have the b**ls to do it. I have never in my 71 years seen
      anybody like this guy. He is really out to destroy this country so
      his muslim buddies can try to take over this country. What an arrogant SOB this guy is. In my opinion he has made it difficult for any other black man to become president. That’s not meant to be racial so don’t blog me that it is.

  • BOB JONES

    wheres the KKK when you need em

  • williamsjohnb

    This President commits treason every time he over rules Congress. He cannot do what he is doing. Unfortunately, nobody has the money to attempt to remove him from his office. He must be stopped before he completely destroys the Republic. I wonder who besides Richard Mourdock and Rand Paul have the gonads to take him on?

  • Richard

    The solution is very clear, if Obama signs this he is in clear violation of the Constitution no spin to it at all. Impeach him if he does and if Harry Reid and the senate don’t agree then recall them ,charge them with treason and put them all in jail.

  • Richard

    Egyptian people just had their corrupt dictator removed because they united. We need to get millions of people in Washington to do the same thing.

  • Richard

    If Obama wanted to destroy our economy he would run massive deficits
    and debts, expand the size ,scope and power of government, impose
    policies that drive the cost of energy up, impose even more regulations
    on businesses, expand the welfare state, print money to dilute the
    value of the dollar, demonize success while rewarding failure. Use the
    NLRB to shut down non union Boeing factories,Gibson guitars etc. in
    right to work states, import more third worlders to dilute the quality
    of life of our own of citizens. That’s what he would do if his
    intentions were to work along with George Soros and devalue our
    currency. Soros makes money on manipulating and betting on a nations
    currency drop in value, it’s a power trip gain to him and he admitted he
    wants to devalue our currency he’ll make a few more billion. He is
    living here in the USA because he is banned from England and a few
    countries in Europe..

  • Richard

    Newsflash!!! AP (Associated Press) It has just been found hidden in the
    healthcare bill that everyone will have to pay for auto insurance even
    if you don’t drive or own a car.This will begin at every american
    citizens birth (not illegals) and parents will be held responsible to
    make sure it is paid up until the child reaches age 26.Oblama said ” Let
    me be clear it will fund my public sector jobs bill too since the
    private sector is doing good and now is the best time to start
    collecting for it,after all health insurance and auto insurance mean the
    exact same thing”. He thanks his supporters for pointing this out in
    all their letters to the Whitehouse, that you can be forced to buy
    insurance even if you don’t need it or want it. Oblama speaking with a
    group of ACORN/SEIU workers ,some dressed as doctors and a handful of
    real lawyers drooling behind him cheering and defending Oblamacare by
    saying that you can drive your health down the street and run over and
    kill people and if you sneeze or fart hard enough you can cause
    thousands of dollars in property damage, it’s the same thing…
    ————This is breaking news ———–

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.