article written by Tom Lacovara and Sheila Zilinsky
Little spoken about is the treasonous small arms treaty signed by John Kerry. Why may you ask was it treasonous?
It was, due to the legal fact that the United States citizens, are NOT subject to any treaty that trumps Constitutional rights. The main stream, lame stream media, once again, is failing miserably to adequately inform the public of this clear and present danger upon the sovereignty of the people. Contrary to the majority of the public being against gun bans and gun control, the Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino exposed this to be the lie that it was. This caused him to quit, out of principle, and out of reverence and respect for the US Constitution. We must rally behind such courageous individuals, who walk away from nearly a lifetime in a career that they love, when they are so shaken to the core that they feel compelled to do something. To do something bold……risking failure and opposition that far exceeds their financial considerations….. But individuals like Dan Bongino, and Robby Wells who run for office and those such as Ben Swann that have such journalistic integrity, that they shy away from the establishment and the main stream….and grass roots efforts come flowing right behind them. While the signing of the small arms treaty was ignored by some, explained away by others, an all too ominous case was tried. The defenses were once again tested by the Obama administration.
This time the story had nothing to do with international law, or at least it shouldn’t have….The case was Bond v. US. The Obama Administration chose to prosecute Carol Bond, who poisoned her husband. And they tried to charge her with an “international treaty violation” that relates to the use of “chemical weapons”. This in and of itself is so preposterous, that the intention of a treaty be used against an individual citizen, as it is clearly meant to keep nations from using weapons of mass destruction against one another or its own citizenry. The treaty binds governments, not the people of whom they are employed. The constant attempts by this and the previous administration send shockwaves of warnings…”Danger, Danger”, Will Robinson, there are seriously ominous times ahead, as the famous robot from “Lost In Space” would say…and that is exactly what I feel like I am as I internalize and realize the actual intentions of these people, of this man, of this Marxist.
The trying of this case had absolutely nothing to do with this murder or justice. Justice would have her in the State court of which she was charged, and she would be judged buy a jury of her peers and sentenced accordingly. But this push was a political push to seize more power and this power is so un-Constitutional, it is utter and direct usurpation by the administration, and another step closer to what will surely be my death for writing. Do you understand people? Are you getting it? This is the rise of a power to realize total global governance, and destroy the rights of the people by which these people have clearly shown they do not serve. Obama does not care about what we feel or think. This is a move toward totalitarianism……Marxism is the evil of mankind. I pray that we come up to a hail Mary moment, that the American people catch in the end zone. Because if we do the same as the Germans did, we will be surely living in a “sectored” U.S.S.A. I never dreamed when I was younger that one day I would fear writing. That I would so absolutely be sickened by the inhumanity of it all. At least the Supreme Court still stood the line. But with no enforcement arm, it is beginning to appear that the real truth is that we may already be living under a soft constant form of “martial law’. I pray I am wrong……
The following is an exchange that came directly from the S.C.O.T.U.S. web site…. the Obama lawyer’s exchange
from SCOTUS Blog:
Justice Sotomayor said “it would be deeply ironic” if the Court were to find unconstitutional the U.S. role under the chemical weapons treaty at the very time the global community was trying to deal with Syria. Justice Elena Kagan cautioned about asking judges to try to “get into the minds” of those negotiating world treaties like the chemical weapons pact.
But Verrilli seemed to be tested more rigorously in trying to persuade the Court not to start drawing lines to limit treaty power or treaty implementation, as the more conservative Justices — sometimes using sarcasm — challenged his core argument. The conservatives were joined in their challenges by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who often is a strong defender of national government power.
But it was Breyer who seemed to irritate Verrilli the most, when the Justice discussed how open-ended the weapons treaty was — so much so that it might even reach disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong’s use of performance-enhancing drugs — and pressed Verrilli to say what limits, if any, there were on the treaty’s reach. “Hypotheticals are just hypotheticals; they are not real cases,” Verrilli shot back.
Verrilli, though, also had to face some tart responses. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., said that the hypotheticals the Justices were reciting were not real cases “because you haven’t prosecuted them.” Alito went on to test the government position by noting that, a few days ago, he and his wife had passed out “chemical weapons” to children — that is, Halloween chocolate. He noted that “chocolate is poisonous to dogs,” and the treaty bans the use of any chemical harmful to animals as well as humans.
When Justice Breyer commented lightly that “there was chocolate all over the place,” Verrilli bluntly commented: “This is serious business.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., repeatedly questioned the Solicitor General about whether there is any constitutional limit on Congress’s power to enter treaties or implement them, and whether a treaty could give Congress the authority to claim ”national police powers.” Verrilli answered that it would be ”unimaginable that the Senate would ratify” such a treaty.
But that answer prompted Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to say: “It seems unimaginable that you did bring this prosecution (of Carol Bond).”