Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty
Penned 
by Jack MinorEmail | Archive Jack Minor is a former Marine who served under President Reagan. He has written hundreds of articles and has been interviewed about his work on multiple television and radio outlets. He is also a former pastor and has been acknowledged for his research ability in several books.
Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.
As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin earlier this year, in a video in which he claimed Obama was leading America down the p..., blasted the ATT, also known as the small arms treaty, saying it would regulate private gun ownership.
“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”
Now some 130 lawmakers, consisting of mostly Republicans, but also including Democrats such as Reps. Jason Altmire, Sanford Bishop, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis and Peter DeFazio sent off a letter to the Obama administration opposing the treaty.
The letter states that Congress is concerned the treaty could “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
The letter goes on to declare that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” and the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.
The ATT would specifically require signatories to identify and trace, in “a timely and reliable manner,” illicit small arms and light weapons. The information would be required to be submitted to the United Nations.
The treaty was opposed by the Bush administration, but President Obama’s administration reversed direction on the treaty. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty.
While the treaty is still in a draft stage, the United Nations is beginning a month-long process beginning this week to craft the final details of the treaty.
Supporters say the treaty is necessary to prevent rogue countries from being able to purchase guns from arms dealers. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said concerns about the treaty restricting individual rights are “misplaced” and that he supported its goals.
Critics of the treaty have long maintained that the treaty would lead to mandatory registration of all firearms and every sale; even those between individuals.
The congressional letter also takes issue with the “moral equivalence” of comparing America to totalitarian regimes and calls upon the administration to break consensus and reject the treaty. It goes on to remind the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone.”
This is not the first time Congress has sent letters to the administration opposing the small arms treaty. Last year, Congress sent off a similar letter addressing many of the same concerns. This letter was signed by 12 Democrats who joined 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.
The letter stated, “The Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sale of firearms or ammunition.”
It went on to state, “The establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”
While that letter was been touted in the mainstream media as an indication that Democrats are now opposing gun control, some pointed out that the letter actually proved the opposite. The Senators stated they support the general concept of the treaty but believe countries such as the U.S. should have “exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders.”
Critics point out that this statement indicates that the senators believe firearms registration is acceptable provided it is initiated by individual governments.
Tags: 2nd-amendment, American-Citizens, Boykin, U.N.-Gun-Treaty, Weapons, hussein-Obama, regulations, sale
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Twana Blevins on -
-
Permalink Reply by Twana Blevins on
-
Publius-Huldah's Blog
Understanding the ConstitutionA Defense of the U.S. Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.
by Publius Huldah
If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?
We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:
1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…
Article VI, cl. 2 says:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.
2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word & phrase. The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.
So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.
3. From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”. If the Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to act on a subject, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78, 10th -11th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. (e.g., Federalist No. 78, 9th para).
4. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The American People to induce them to ratify it. Because of this, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution. Thus, we must always consult The Federalist to learn what it says about any constitutional provision. In Federalist No. 44 (7th para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:
…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]
Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson:
In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]
Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]
According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]
5. So! We see from the above that the treaty making power of the United States is very limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2).
The Federalist Papers discuss the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd and 6th paras). Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st and 3rd paras).
In addition, Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents and copyrights.
6. Now, let us consider the proposed “climate change” treaty. There exists somewhere a 200 page draft agreement which, during December 2009, is to be hammered out, put into final form, and signed in Copenhagen. If signed by Obama and ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?
To answer that Question, we must first ask: Does The Constitution authorize Congress to make laws about the objects of the proposed “climate change” treaty? One wants to see the actual 200 page draft agreement, but it appears, from various web sites, that the gist of the scheme is for the governments of the “rich” nations to reduce the “greenhouse gas emissions” within their borders and to send money to the “poor” nations to bribe them to sign the treaty and to compensate them for our “past emissions”. There seem also to be provisions for entrepreneurs like AlGore to sell “carbon offset credits” or “emission reduction units” to those who emit more than “their share” of “greenhouse emissions”. [By the way, from where does AlGore get them to sell?]
And just what, pray, are “greenhouse emissions”? Primarily, carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Carbon dioxide: the gas which humans and other animals exhale, and which plants must have for photosynthesis [sounds like a good system to me]. Methane: The gas which animals belch. All very easy to control: Kill most of the people and most of the animals! Shut down our remaining industries. Stop the cars. Turn off the electricity. Cut off supplies of propane. Prohibit the burning of wood. And water vapor! Oh! We must stop poisoning the world with Water!
So! The Questions are these: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. “emissions”? Is transferring wealth from Americans to “poor” nations to compensate them for our “past emissions”, one of the enumerated powers of Congress? Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor?
The answer is NO! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the “climate change” treaty, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such. Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.
7. While the statist-in-chief will surely sign a Treaty in Copenhagen, ratification requires two thirds of the Senators present (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.2). Are we such a corrupt people that we elected 67 U.S. Senators who will vote to ratify the Treaty? But even if 67 faithless Senators vote to ratify it, then we may take heart from the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 44 (16th para):
… in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…
and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):
…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….
Read again the foregoing passages! The statists can not enslave us without our acquiescence. For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!” We are told that “The Rule of Law” requires us to obey every order, law, court opinion, or treaty coming out of the federal government. And not only do we believe such nonsense, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Learning, Thinking and Analysis. And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!” Pay attention to the words of our beloved James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. PH
October 27, 2009
The Treaty Making Power of the United States
TREATIES: Part Of The Supreme Law Of The Land???
By Publius Huldah
If the United States Senate ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, will that UN Convention become part of the supreme Law of the Land? [1] If the Senate ratifies the proposed cap and trade “climate” treaty, will that become part of the supreme Law of the Land? [2]
We hear it said that whenever the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution?
1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Art II, §2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…
Article VI, cl. 2 says:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.
2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) [3] that one must give effect to every word & phrase. The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.
So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.
3. From where do the President & the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President & Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”. If the Constitution does not authorize the President & Congress to act on an object, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. [4] Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law, [5] it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. [6]
4. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The People to induce them to ratify it. Because of this, The Federalist Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution. Thus, we must always consult The Federalist Papers to learn what they say about any constitutional provision. In Federalist No. 44 (7th Para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:
…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added] [7]
Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let’s turn to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: [8]
In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]
Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]
According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]
5. So! We have seen that the treaty making power of the United States is limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President & the Congress to do in this area! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, § 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, § 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, §2, cl. 2).
The authors of The Federalist Papers commented on the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd & 6th Paras). Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors & consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st & 4th Paras).
There may be additional objects of the treaty making power authorized in The Constitution. For example, Art I, § 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries“. Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents & copyrights. [9]
6. Let’s look now at the proposed U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. If ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?
To answer that Question, we must first ask: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting “children”? Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over “children”?
The answer to both questions is “NO!” In addition, the 10th Amendment says if a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, it is [generally] reserved to the States or the people Thus, jurisdiction over “children” is reserved to the States or the People! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such.
If the Senate were to ratify the cap-and-trade “climate” treaty, which, among other things, would force energy companies to buy allowances or permits for their “carbon emissions”, would it become part of “the supreme law of the Land”? You are now equipped to find the answer, and you can confidently defend it!
Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.
7. Finally, Thomas Jefferson pointed to a legislative remedy if the President and the Senate ignore the constitutional limits on the treaty making power of the United States; or even if they enter into a treaty which is permitted by the Constitution but of which the House disapproves. Thomas Jefferson said: [10]
We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three [did he mean, "two"?] branches of Legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not. –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1796. ME 9:329 [emphasis added]
I was glad… to hear it admitted on all hands, that laws of the United States, subsequent to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points are sound beyond doubt.–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. ME 10:41
What a man! And our system of checks & balances is an elegant one, indeed!
8. Folks! For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!” And not only do we believe it, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Thinking & Analysis. And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!”
Publius Huldah
September 18, 2009; revised Oct. 11, 2011
[1]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treat...
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BusinessofGreen/idUSTRE51Q22L200...
[3] Educators no longer teach “rules of construction”, because it has become the dogma of our time that texts have no “objective meaning” to be discovered. Instead, each person is to come up with his own “understanding” – and one person’s “understanding” is as good as another’s. A friend recalls the following incident which occurred in an high school English class during 1960: The class read a short story, & then the teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him. Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher. But when it was my friend’s turn, he said: “It doesn’t matter what it means to me – what matters is what the author meant.” The teacher was not pleased with this ‘out of place’ comment. Is it any wonder many judges feel free to “understand” the Constitution any way they please? They were conditioned in school to “think” this way; and they did not resist the conditioning.
[4] In Federalist No. 33 (7th Para), Alexander Hamilton pointed to Art. VI, cl.2, and said that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such.
[5] The Federalist No. 78 (12th & 13th Paras), A. Hamilton.
[6] The Federalist No. 78 (11th Para), states: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” A. Hamilton.
[7] Madison thus showed why it was necessary that Art. VI, cl. 2 grant to Treaties supremacy over State Constitutions.
[8] See the Univ. of Virginia website at http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm for these and more quotes on the same subject.
[9] It has been said that Charles Dickens’ works were pirated, printed and sold in these United States without paying any royalties to Dickens! A copyright treaty with Great Britain might have discouraged this theft of Dickens’ intellectual property.
[10] http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm
-
Permalink Reply by Pat Chadwell on -
Now you know why the oil rig blew up..Hillary was at the UN working on the bill to take all the peoples guns from them. With the oil rig burnning all the news when south, just like Fort Hood when the tea party was going thru the halls of the senate and congress, and all the news media was at Fort Hood. nothing was reported on the tea party....
-
Permalink Reply by Harry Riley on -
Obama, Hillary, and Holder tried to paint a picture of guns killing our border patrol officers.....it didn't work, they got caught selling the guns to drug dealers and criminals in Mexico and God only knows where else. They were hoping "guns" would be blamed, the truth is that Obama, Hillary, and Holder are the criminals and the biggest threat to law and order...they are part of the death spiral.
All three of these people are despicable betrayers of America...they all should be tried, convicted, and hung.
-
Permalink Reply by Edie Faylor on
-
Agreed! This treaty must not pass!
-
Permalink Reply by Linda Gadd on -
right on Harry, God help us!! Their all LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by RP McKinley on
-
I will say one thing to this. If Hillary Clinton, Barack H. Obama, Joe Biden, and /or anyone else in the government of these United States of America either sign, vote for, or vote to ratify these United Nations treaties, then I will go to my grave trying to make damn sure they are charged with, convicted, and hung for treason. Impeachment will not be sufficient.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel J Roy on
-
My sentiments exactly, Ronald!
-
Permalink Reply by SUSAN MARIANO on
-
BUT KNOW ONE WILL DARE DO ANYTHING...THATS THE PROBLEM? HOW DO YOU CHARGE THEM WITH TREASON? NO ONE WILL TOUCH IT, LIKE SO MANY OTHER THINGS THATS BEEN GOING ON, NOTHING IS EVER DONE........THATS OUR PROBLEM...........
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Bunetta on -
The Constitution prohibits treatys being valid even if signed when they contradict or attempt to supercede the Constitution... not that the people in Washington have read or understood it!
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Stewart Reprogle on -
This is a call to arms!
-
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Beatty on
-
The Republicans and some Democrats need to gett off of their buttocks and enforce their letter, and tell traitor Obama to back off in a big hurry.
About
This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Vinenco
Senator Ted Cruz: Confronting The Threat of Radical Islam – full transcript and video
David Horowitz: We need leaders like Ted Cruz. And that’s why we are honored to have him on the platform today. (applause)
Ted Cruz: Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Thank you very, very much. It is great to be joining you all this evening. You know, I will observe, David, Washington is a strange, strange place. People are very, very surprised when you actually go there and do what you said you were going to do. (laughter)
I want to start by [...]
As Islam Rises in Britain, Police Probe at Least 54 More Evil Child Sex Grooming Gangs
In light of the recent report stating that Islam is on the rise in Britain, it is no surprise that this evil being inflicted upon these innocents, is also on the rise.
At least 54 evil child grooming gangs are being investigated by police.
It comes as officers in the North of England are preparing to bust the biggest paedophile network ever seen in the country, with police set to swoop within days.
Our disturbing figures can be revealed after reporters contacted every [...]
Inside Israel: Rachel’s Tomb attacked 290 Times in 6 Months
The Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee discussed the security situation at Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem in Monday. It appears that a roof may be built over the compound, to protect the worshipers inside from incessant Muslim attacks.
The IDF told Knesset Members that about 200 firebombs and 90 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been thrown at the compound since November’s Pillar of Defense military operation in Gaza. That means an average of almost two bombs a day.
The military said that the very tall walls that [...]
Tech Notes
HOW TO JOIN YOUR STATE GROUP
1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.
Follow the Prompts
How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......
Events
© 2013 Created by Twana Blevins.
Powered by
