Activist Post – by Catherine J. Frompovich
As a concerned citizen, who feels that freedom of speech and expression are inherent rights, especially when they concern problems associated with human rights and control issues, I decided to share information forwarded to me recently in an email and to give it voice with some editing from me.
Even though the vote took place in 2013, U.S. citizens are very concerned about it and want those who voted for the UN Small Arms Treaty to have to reap the ‘rewards’ of their actions.
The UN Small Arms Treaty (Source)
4. National implementation Under Article 5, the Arms Trade Treaty requires that States parties take measures to implement its provisions and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system. This includes taking appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of the Treaty.
C. Model Instrument of Accession to the Arms Trade Treaty
For non-signatory States (to be deposited only following entry into force of the Treaty in accordance with article 22(1))
WHEREAS the Arms Trade Treaty was adopted at New York on 2 April 2013,
NOW THEREFORE I, [name and title of the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister of Foreign Affairs], declare that the Government of _______, having considered the above-mentioned Treaty, accedes to the same Treaty and undertakes faithfully to perform and carry out the stipulations therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have signed this instrument of accession at _______ on _______. [Signature] + [seal] [Emphasis added by CJF]
First, here’s my two-cents-worth: No one in the U.S. Congress should EVER vote to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a foreign power, much less to the United Nations or anyone seeking total control of global politics, e.g., a One World Order. But, that’s my personal opinion.
For my part, it would be a good idea if the USA were to leave the UN and ask the UN to relocate its headquarters elsewhere.
Notation should be made of the problems the European Union is having with second thoughts from some countries about withdrawing [1,2,3,4] apparently due to controls they didn’t expect. Control NEVER works and breed rebellion, as most despots in history found out, so the USA should be out front in fighting against it.
Furthermore, any president – either past, present, or future – who supports the surrender of U.S. sovereignty, ought to be considered a traitor, similar to actions the British crown took in the late 1700s when the colonists were fighting for independence from what they considered a ruling tyrant. Are there any differences between then and now?
The main difference today is the media and press, who have bought into and apparently promote the control agenda, something that seems unfathomable if one is a TRUE American who knows our country’s history, glorious past, and realizes the current horrors going on in the names of change, politics and, even as some think, conspiracies by those wanting repressive controls through socialism.
The best way to get total control over a population is to take away everyone’s capability to resistance. There is no more expedient way to do that in the USA than to negate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, i.e., the Right to Bear Arms and DEFEND oneself, than to take away people’s guns. The other is clamping down on your rights to think and talk about what’s going on that is repressive.
Let me state and affirm emphatically that I do not believe in nor support violence. However, the current political climate in the USA is not what U.S. citizens expect nor want. If politicians who want to surrender U.S. sovereignty to others vote to do that, then that is not acceptable and they should be made to surrender their seats in Congress either willingly, by impeachment, or by voting them out of office in the November 4, 2014 mid-term elections. United we stand; divided we fall. I am not the first and, hopefully, not the last who will declare those immortal words.
“United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs,” was the plea uttered by Patrick Henry in March of 1799. Let us remember the World War II slogan, which I remember seeing as a child.
We should resolve this IS America; for this we will fight! And no one will take it away from us.
______________
From anonymous forwarded e-mail
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us?
Well, let their names become known. See below in a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. And, had language that would have implemented an international gun registry. Now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your U.S. Constitutional rights to the U.N.
- Baldwin (D-WI)
- Baucus (D-MT)
- Bennett (D-CO)
- Blumenthal (D-CT)
- Boxer (D-CA)
- Brown (D-OH)
- Cantwell (D-WA)
- Cardin (D-MD)
- Carper (D-DE)
- Casey (D-PA)
- Coons (D-DE)
- Cowan (D-MA)
- Durbin (D-IL)
- Feinstein (D-CA)
- Franken (D-MN)
- Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Harkin (D-IA)
- Hirono (D-HI)
- Johnson (D-SD)
- Kaine (D-VA)
- King (I-ME)
- Klobuchar (D-MN)
- Landrieu (D-LA)
- Leahy (D-VT)
- Levin (D-MI)
- McCaskill (D-MO)
- Menendez (D-NJ)
- Merkley (D-OR)
- Mikulski (D-MD)
- Murphy (D-CT)
- Murray (D-WA)
- Nelson (D-FL)
- Reed (D-RI)
- Reid (D-NV)
- Rockefeller (D-WV)
- Sanders (I-VT)
- Schatz (D-HI)
- Schumer (D-NY)
- Shaheen (D-NH)
- Stabenow (D-MI)
- Udall (D-CO)
- Udall (D-NM)
- Warner (D-VA)
- Warren (D-MA)
- Whitehouse (D-RI)
- Wyden (D-OR)
46 U.S. Senators [45 Democrats and 1 Independent] Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights to the United Nations, and apparently to comply with the UN’s Agenda 21.
Notes:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union [2]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/11/greek_debt_can_greece_dropout_of_the_european_union_.html [3] http://rt.com/news/us-warns-britain-eu-675/ [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_UnionCatherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/vote-to-end-us-sovereignty-way-too.html
I guess it’s important news, but lately I’m convinced that it’s all an irrelevant dog-and-pony show that presents a fictitious struggle to preserve the illusions of freedom, justice, and representative government, but it should be obvious to everyone by now that nothing’s going to change peacefully.
We’re up against hard-core communists that aren’t going to stop until they have everything we own, and have us buried in mass graves. Get used to it, and get ready for it.
One way or another, you’ll soon be making news instead of reading it, and if you want that to be good news, you better be ready to win.
No one said it has to change peacefully, as most likely those who are in power will refuse to follow the laws, already have.
But, We the People, as the Organized (trained) Militia of the several states have the legally assigned duty to;
Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
“to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.
I know this is unpopular, but it is the best way. Many criminals refuse to get arrested without a fight, so the Militia of the several states must be prepared for that.
Plus, judges (fed and state) are ALLOWED to stay in office ONLY as long as they are using “Good Behaviour” (E. Vieira, a writer named K. Bright, US Constitution, multiple state Constitutions).
US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…
The decision if the decisions judges make in courtrooms are “We the people”.
Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary:
“But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”
The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.
Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.
In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite any belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury nullifies a law that it believes is either a bad law.
Once a jury returns with a verdict of “Not Guilty,” that verdict cannot be questioned by any court, plus the “double jeopardy” clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.
Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.”
And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
John Adams: “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”
John Adams: “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
“though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?
Samuel Chase: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
Patrick Henry: “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off…This gives me comfort, that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.”
Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.
WE have the right to remove them from office, and we NEED to do so. If they do not like it, the Militia will back us up as we make it stronger. You see, WE have our own best interests at heart, not anyone in any of our governments. WE are the last word as each state’s Militia.