7838 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 - 2:23pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

What is a Person-Black law dictionary

What is a Person-Black law dictionary
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 - 2:59pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Alfred Adask-The Big Legal Secret,The DOTS Thinks We Are Animals

ANIMALS

Video unavailable
Video unavailable
Video unavailable
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 - 5:00pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Lights Out?

Big Brother’s New Toy: An EMP Cruise Missile

https://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2012/10/24/big-brothers-new-toy-an-emp...

Just when you thought it was safe to leave your electronics out of the Faraday cage for a day or two, along comes Boeing with a new toy for Big Brother; a cruise missile which emits a microwave burst of energy which creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) as it flies by disabling all electronic devices. In a story from Gizmodo, a test was conducted last week and per the article by Jamie Condlieffe:

Video is on the link.

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 - 9:57am
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Notice The Hand AT 16-19 Too-Triple 6

Video unavailable
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 - 12:27pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Connect The DOTS

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/680/1239/200393/

6

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.

11

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

12

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

13

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961) (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of the Act in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)

14

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

20

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

21

AFFIRMED.

Sat, Oct 27, 2012 - 12:44pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

OMG!

https://whatreallyhappened.com/node/197971

Market Watch still runs story of $43 trillion lawsuit against US banks after CNBC erases their version following murder of CNBC executive's children.

Now following the original CNBC link takes you to a blank page, even though some of the comments on that original article remain (UPDATE: comments have been erased as well).

Here the story takes a dark turn! It turns out that Kevin Krim, the father of the two children stabbed to death, allegedly by the Nanny, is SVP and General Manager, CNBC Digital! And shortly after the murder of the children, CNBC pulled down the story regarding the lawsuit against the banks!

https://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2012/10/43-trillion-dollar-su...

43 TRILLION dollar suit against U.S. govt. officials and major banks! Accuses of stealing from U.S. people and money laundering. Screenshots of CNBC running it.

UPDATE 10/27/12 - 8 AM est- Article not on CNBC anymore and CNBC digital Sr. V.P. executive's children are murdered just hours after article originally put on CNBC.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and...

Major Banks, Governmental Officials and Their Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group, LLP's Racketeering and Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to the United States Treasury

https://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2012/10/cnbc-article-on-43-tr...

Read the comments, links there

Sat, Oct 27, 2012 - 1:21pm
Mr. Fix
Offline
-
NY
Joined: Jun 8, 2012
10801
64418

Good job connecting the dots!

It appears to me that the evil Empire is having an increasingly difficult time in keeping all its ducks in a row. I have been following both of these stories, and the murder of the children, did not add up. Just a gut feeling tells me that the nanny didn't do it. Tying that into the $43 trillion lawsuit, tends to put all of the pieces of the puzzle in order. The evil Empire is becoming increasingly desperate, and exponentially more evil. A lot of this is coming to a head. Nice work Nana.

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."
Sat, Oct 27, 2012 - 1:26pm
silver66
Offline
Joined: Oct 8, 2012
3393
15756

Bank of Canada

Hopefully I post this link correctly

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/mUjBLLzYPGg&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embe..."></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/mUjBLLzYPGg&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embe..." type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>

if I have not I appologize :-)

silver66

Silver66 Rage against the dying of the light

Sat, Oct 27, 2012 - 1:59pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

One Hundred Million Dollar Penny

One Hundred Million Dollar Penny
Sat, Oct 27, 2012 - 3:13pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

biden asks can humans be microchipped

Video unavailable
Sat, Oct 27, 2012 - 4:01pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Mind Boggling

https://www.businessinsider.com/feds-16-trillion-dollar-secret-slush-fun...

The sick thing about this report of the largest theft in human history,is the name of the report,Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance. The title of the article is the equivalent IBM conducting a review of the Holocaust,which they facilitated,and titled their report, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Lebensunwertes Leben. (Life unworthy of life.) This report shows that no one is coming to save you and you had better start thinking and acting for yourself. The report seems to be about how best to do this crime again. If tens of Trillions did nothing,how about hundreds or thousands of Trillions? The government is an active and willing participant in this crime. Banksters derive power from creating debt/money and politicians derive power from spending money/debt. It is a sick symbiotic relationship that will not be cut until the whole cancerous system collapses.

-------

https://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation#outer_page_144

^^^The Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance report

-------


“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system,for if they did,I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” -Henry Ford

Sat, Oct 27, 2012 - 7:44pm
Karankawa
Offline
-
Portland, TX
Joined: Jul 7, 2012
1610
6769

What a great culmination of information!

Thank you Nana.

Karankawa

"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves."
Sun, Oct 28, 2012 - 3:02am
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Obama Signs New Executive Order Expanding Homeland Security

https://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2012/10/obama-signs-new-executive-order-...

Obama Signs New Executive Order Expanding Homeland Security Mission In The U.S.

ESTABLISHING THE WHITE HOUSE

HOMELAND SECURITY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to advance the Federal Government’s use of local partnerships to address homeland security challenges, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. The purpose of this order is to maximize the Federal Government’s ability to develop local partnerships in the United States to support homeland security priorities. Partnerships are collaborative working relationships in which the goals, structure, and roles and responsibilities of the relationships are mutually determined. Collaboration enables the Federal Government and its partners to use resources more efficiently, build on one another’s expertise, drive innovation, engage in collective action, broaden investments to achieve shared goals, and improve performance. Partnerships enhance our ability to address homeland security priorities, from responding to natural disasters to preventing terrorism, by utilizing diverse perspectives, skills, tools, and resources. The National Security Strategy emphasizes the importance of partnerships, underscoring that to keep our Nation safe “we must tap the ingenuity outside government through strategic partnerships with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations. Such partnerships are critical to U.S. success at home and abroad, and we will support them through enhanced opportunities for engagement, coordination, transparency, and information sharing.” This approach recognizes that, given the complexities and range of challenges, we must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States. Sec. 2. White House Homeland Security Partnership Council and Steering Committee. (a) White House Homeland Security Partnership Council. There is established a White House Homeland Security Partnership Council (Council) to foster local partnerships — between the Federal Government and the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement — to address homeland security challenges. The Council shall be chaired by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (Chair), or a designee from the National Security Staff. (b) Council Membership. (i) Pursuant to the nomination process established in subsection (b)(ii) of this section, the Council shall be composed of Federal officials who are from field offices of the executive departments, agencies, and bureaus (agencies) that are members of the Steering Committee established in subsection (c) of this section, and who have demonstrated an ability to develop, sustain, and institutionalize local partnerships to address policy priorities. (ii) The nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council shall be established by the Steering Committee. Based on those criteria, agency heads may select and present to the Steering Committee their nominee or nominees to represent them on the Council. The Steering Committee shall consider all of the nominees and decide by consensus which of the nominees shall participate on the Council. Each member agency on the Steering Committee, with the exception of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, may have at least one representative on the Council. (c) Steering Committee. There is also established a Steering Committee, chaired by the Chair of the Council, to provide guidance to the Council and perform other functions as set forth in this order. The Steering Committee shall include a representative at the Deputy agency head level, or that representative’s designee, from the following agencies: (i) Department of State; (ii) Department of the Treasury; (iii) Department of Defense; (iv) Department of Justice; (v) Department of the Interior; (vi) Department of Agriculture; (vii) Department of Commerce; (viii) Department of Labor; (ix) Department of Health and Human Services; (x) Department of Housing and Urban Development; (xi) Department of Transportation; (xii) Department of Energy; (xiii) Department of Education; (xiv) Department of Veterans Affairs; (xv) Department of Homeland Security; (xvi) Office of the Director of National Intelligence; (xvii) Environmental Protection Agency; (xviii) Small Business Administration; and (xix) Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the invitation of the Chair, representatives of agencies not listed in subsection (c) of this section or other executive branch entities may attend and participate in Steering Committee meetings as appropriate. (d) Administration. The Chair or a designee shall convene meetings of the Council and Steering Committee, determine their agendas, and coordinate their work. The Council may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Council members or their designees, as appropriate. Sec. 3. Mission and Function of the Council and Steering Committee. (a) The Council shall, consistent with guidance from the Steering Committee: (i) advise the Chair and Steering Committee members on priorities, challenges, and opportunities for local partnerships to support homeland security priorities, as well as regularly report to the Steering Committee on the Council’s efforts; (ii) promote homeland security priorities and opportunities for collaboration between Federal Government field offices and State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders; (iii) advise and confer with State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders and agencies interested in expanding or building local homeland security partnerships; (iv) raise awareness of local partnership best practices that can support homeland security priorities; (v) as appropriate, conduct outreach to representatives of the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement entities with relevant expertise for local homeland security partnerships, and collaborate with other Federal Government bodies; and (vi) convene an annual meeting to exchange key findings, progress, and best practices. (b) The Steering Committee shall: (i) determine the scope of issue areas the Council will address and its operating protocols, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget; (ii) establish the nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council as set forth in section 2(b)(ii) of this order; (iii) provide guidance to the Council on the activities set forth in subsection (a) of this section; and (iv) within 1 year of the selection of the Council members, and annually thereafter, provide a report on the work of the Council to the President through the Chair. Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) The heads of agencies participating in the Steering Committee shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to implement this order. Each agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council. (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals; or (iii) the functions of the Overseas Security Advisory Council. (c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties, and subject to the availability of appropriations. (d) 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, October 26, 2012.
Sun, Oct 28, 2012 - 1:51pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution

https://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.

The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.

Now we must let our elected "representatives" in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE... we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.

[Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research. The use of this information is not to be construed as endorsement of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter. Claire Kelly is a trusted and knowledgeable friend. - CDR]

__________________________________________

Here's what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".

pg 317 - "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." ______________________________________________________________

Further evidence:

Excerpt from a letter from U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, (R. Penn.) to constituent, November 3, 1994.

"Dear Mr. Neely:

"Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. ... I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies]

"... Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country... "

[CDR Note: It is our belief that Arlen Specter would not have been as truthful regarding Constitutional Supremacy over treaties if he had a clue that this letter to a constituent would have found its way into the hands or eyes of the public.]

_________________________________________________

Logical deduction:

No law or treaty supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land. 'Supreme'... meaning 'highest or greatest'. What is higher than highest or greater than greatest, other than our Creator? The Constitution acknowledges our God-given, unalienable rights, and secures those rights in that acknowledgement.

The Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding the Constitution. Let's examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all. Article VI of the Constitution states:

Clause 2 - "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Clause 3 - "The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution ."

Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede B or be repugnant to B this Constitution.

Treaties made under the authority of the United States... the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.

In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support this Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?

The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it.

The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void. The answer to this question is self-evident.

The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations B the word Anation@ although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization - a Global Corporate Bureaucracy

. The 'experts' in international law, commerce, banking, environment, etc.; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders -- lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example -- have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of 'treaty-supremacy' for decades. Their 'expertise' is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the 'common man' (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence. Let's not go there.

Here's a perfect example of 'expert' propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said...

"Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, ...can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."

Mr. Dulles is confused about the People's rights. To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn't 'give' us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away.

The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit -- propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.

"There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country..."

Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.

The question of "nationhood" in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress. A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture?

Case Closed

Sun, Oct 28, 2012 - 2:10pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Nullification: It’s Official

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/28/nullification-its-official/

Nullification: It’s Official

While speaking to a large crowd of over a thousand people on the campus of Arizona State University last December, Congressman Ron Paul mentioned one thing that might come about as the result of the federal government habitually ignoring the Constitution: Nullification.

About five minutes into the video segment which you’ll find below, he said, “There’s not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There’s not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don’t get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can’t get the results out of Washington — They’re going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that.”....

Ron Paul and Nullification
Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano Talk Revolution, Nullification
Ron Paul: Freedom from Government
Sun, Oct 28, 2012 - 2:42pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

How To invoke your rights with The Police

Video unavailable
How To invoke your rights with The Police
Sun, Oct 28, 2012 - 3:00pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class

Video unavailable
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 - 11:28am
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Michael Badnarik Federal Reserve

Michael Badnarik Federal Reserve
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 - 1:36pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Michael Badnarik addresses the sheriffs

Michael Badnarik: Rattling the Sheriffs' Cages About the Constitution
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 - 2:30pm
Nana
Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2012
4915
14609

Sheriff Mack: Nullify we Must, and Nullify we Will!

Sheriff Mack: Nullify we Must, and Nullify we Will!