Home

H. Res. 814: In defense of the second amendment

10 Comments

Marti Oakley (c) Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________________________________

Apparently there are still a few public officials who will honor the Constitution left in the House of Representatives.  Many of these representatives recognized the threat to the second amendment inherent in the UN Small Arms Treaty.  This treaty, which the president has indicated he would sign, bypassing congress and ratification by the states, is intended to be handed back over to the Secretary of State to implement by agency decree and imposed upon the states.

While being sold to the public as simply a guideline for limiting the sales of small arms to the same countries we are many times waging war with, the treaty would severely affect the sale and ownership of small arms i.e., private gun ownership, here in the states.  The obvious end goal included in many other global goals,  is the disarmament of US gun owners.

The UN Small Arms treaty is nothing more than the effort to end all gun ownership anywhere in the world, except those weapons used by the military forces around the globe. With the UN attempting to gift itself the right to construct its own military with an eye on becoming the only military force on the planet, our right to keep and bear arms is more important than ever.

The Small Arms Treaty will not slow down or even minimally impact the arms trading and dealing that is conducted globally.

Arms controls for peace while we expand the global wars

“In what has to be the epitome of duplicity, Hillary Clinton is now conspiring with UN officials to begin the disarmament of the citizens of the US via this pseudo-treaty. Its all for world peace, right? Obviously not, as Clinton gave an excited speech in May 2012, to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference describing the new six-point global plan for war intended to encompass numerous countries and her obvious desire for her department to be part and parcel of the newly emerging “global wars everywhere” plan. Clinton’s obvious disregard or refusal to acknowledge the deaths of children resulting from these wars is clearly an indication that the woman is lying about her desire for world peace. But I think we already knew that.”

Please contact your representatives and encourage them to support H.Res. 814.  It may well be just another half-hearted effort to make you think they are actually opposed to this treaty, but it will give you a chance to voice your objections directly to your representative.  FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

Read the bill …. More

South Korean trade deal signed: Bend over America!

8 Comments

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved 

________________________________________________

Comment:  It appears we are caught in the middle of a nightmare from which we are unable to wake. While the president insists we must accept the global economy, we can see the devastating effects of this system of global banking, mounting famine and starvation, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the massive decline in wages and the standard of living here in the US.  If this is what a global economy does, and if unlawful trade agreements are constructed to facilitate this, I say we reject it totally; it is killing us all. More

Nothing less than treason

Leave a comment

In what is nothing less than a step towards martial law and the North American Union, U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renaurt signed an agreement with Canadian Air Force Lt-Gen. Marc Dumais  which is nothing less than a treaty, called the Civil Assistance PlanThis so-called agreement (treaty) signals the intended use of the military of Canada on U.S. soil, against U.S. Citizens. 

The flowery language in the public announcement from United States Northern Command appears to imply that without the assistance of Canadian troops, our military might not be able to efficiently respond in the event of a national emergency.  Supposedly, if we have a flood, hurricane, forest fire, earthquake or another terrorist attack additional forces that are more flexible and adaptive are needed and these forces are, for some reason, not to be found within the 1.5 million in our own military.

Our military isn’t supposed to respond in the first place, much less with the assistance of foreign soldiers.  We have made similar agreements (treaty’s) with other nations including Germany and Mexico. 

It isn’t a national disaster or attack from terrorists that the two governments are preparing for.  It is the anticipated civil revolts resulting from the intent to merge the U.S, Canada and Mexico; and the intentional creation of a food shortage over this year along with the forced collapse of our economies that has them worried.  What if the peasants revolt?

What concerns me most in this treasonous pact are those terms, flexible and adaptive.  I can’t imagine any military more flexible and adaptive than our own….so what could this really mean?

In the context of the North American Union, it means soldiers who wouldn’t be firing on family and friends…on their countrymen.  The subconscious sense of national identity would allow Canadian soldiers to view us as an enemy.  That sense would not likely include natural inhibitions our own military might have about attacking U.S. citizens under a declaration of martial law.  The reverse would be likely for the U.S. military on Canadian soil.

We have a little known law called “The Logan Act”.  This act makes it a felony for any person to enter into agreements or treaty’s, or even conversations with foreign nations that in any way work to undermine the United States as a nation.  It is only with permission from those with the authority to do so, that any discussions or meetings can occur….and these still may not include anything that undermines the laws or sovereignty of the U.S..

I would like to know who gave Gen. Renaurt the permission to enter into this agreement with foreign nations?  Whomever, that person was, is guilty of a felony as is the General.

Our constitution says that treaty’s are the law of the land.  These must be adhered to.  But, treaty’s also must abide by the sovereign laws of the U.S.  They also must pass both houses of congress and be approved before being adopted.  Which is exactly why “treaty” is never used in these illegal pacts and the word “agreement” is substituted.  This bypasses congress altogether and allows unhindered assaults on our sovereignty. 

 These “agreements” are illegal and unconstitutional regardless of who initiated them.  There are no provisions in our Constitution for such agreements.  This would include the North American Free Trade Agreement.   The Central America Free Trade Agreement.  The Free Trade Area of the America’s Agreement, and a host of other agreements that are destroying our economy and forfeiting our sovereignty. 

This brings me back to a question that seems to run through my mind daily.  Where the hell is our congress?  Whether Democrat or Republican not one of them has made any effort to end this corruption of our laws and of our Constitution.  And, not one of these bloated politicians has spoken one word about this treasonous pact.  Dead silence.

Oh! Except for Ron Paul, he of course, has.  Well…. there’s one in a row.

 

Don’t think they are worried about this either.  If we protest too much they can always vote themselves retro-active immunity from any prosecution…..and then call on Canada’s military to silence us.

Marti Oakley  Copyright 2008 

 Resource: http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html

%d bloggers like this: