Thursday, December 27, 2012
There is no treaty between the U.S. and the UN.
Executive Agreements (Have you ever heard of this? Now you have.)
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
The challenge of obtaining two-thirds vote on treaties was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate.
In recent years, the growth in executive agreements is also attributable to the sheer volume of business conducted between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already heavy workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are of relatively minor importance and would needlessly overburden the Senate if they were submitted as treaties for advice and consent. Another factor has been the passage of legislation authorizing the executive branch to conclude international agreements in certain fields, such as foreign aid, agriculture, and trade. Treaties have also been approved that authorize further agreements between the parties. According to a 1984 study by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, "88.3 percent of international agreements reached between 1946 and 1972 were based at least partly on statutory authority; 6.2 percent were treaties, and 5.5 percent were based solely on executive authority."
(6.2% were treaties signed by the president alone. Where in the US Constitution does it allow this? It does not.) We have had an UNconstitutional government for a long time.) Story Reports
There is no treaty between the U.S. and the UN.
By their own definition: "the UN is an intergovernmental organization... an organization to which governments belong". The UN is not a government, nor is it a nation. The UN is a nongovernmental organization. In light of that certainty, and contrary to propaganda we have been fed and have swallowed whole for the nearly sixty years since the U.S. signed on as a UN member nation -- October 24, 1945 -- a few details could use some clarification in our minds and in the minds of local and state elected officials:
1) Our Constitution provides authority for the U.S. to enter into treaties with other nations (governments). An organization, no matter what its builders call it, is just that and nothing more... an organization, whether non- or inter-governmental. Do you like the fact that every 'war' fought by Americans since WWII has been fought under the auspices of -- and was called for by -- self-appointed experts in an organization the war-makers themselves established? Oh, yes, they tell us it isn't war-making, it's peace-keeping.
The reason the 'conflicts' are not called war, but instead are called 'peacekeeping missions' -- according to Brian Merchant of the National Security Council (NSC) -- is because "under international law, peacekeeping is not defined as war". That is a perfect example of newspeak, from Orwell's book, 1984, where WAR IS PEACE and SLAVERY IS FREEDOM.
2) The U.S. is a dues-paying member of the United Nations Organization, which was foisted upon the people in America under the guise of a mutual pact by nations of the world to eliminate war. The American people did not vote to become members of the international non-governmental United Nations Organization.
In fact, the majority of appointed officials in the U.S. State Department who orchestrated our entry into the UN were later exposed as Communists. Alger Hiss, the primary motivater of the scheme was later sent to prison as a Communist spy.
We've been led to believe the U.S. Senate ratified a "treaty" with the UN. Even if they went through the motions of doing so, those motions do not make it a treaty, nor binding on the U.S. A resolution passed by the U.S. Congress in the 1970's recognizing the UN as a sovereign nation does not make it so either. One cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. An organization is an organization, not a sovereign nation/government.
There is no treaty between the U.S. and the UN. Signing a "charter" is not signing a treaty with a nation.
U.N. approves new debate on arms treaty Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:13pm EST
After Obama's re-election last month, his administration joined other members of a U.N. committee in supporting the resumption of negotiations on the treaty.
That move was set in stone on Monday when the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly voted to hold a final round of negotiations on March 18-28 in New York.
(Any "treaty" with the UN is void. The UN is not a "nation" or "government". It is a international non-governmental United Nations Organization. The US senate is in violation of the US Constitution if it ratifies a treaty with an "organization" that is not a nation or government.
If the US trys to confiscate your weapons by using a "treaty" with the UN it is unlawful to do so. Its that simple!) Story Reports
Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder."
Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats.
(If they get your weapons you can believe it will be democide for those who own the weapons. Why because you will have been deemed a future threat to the police state.)