Skip to content

Submitting To International Treaties And The U.N.

May 14, 2010
Dr. Laurie Roth

The U.S. is a sovereign nation with our own laws, priorities and goals. We have no business signing or submitting to anything that the anti American and anti Semitic U.N. wants to control and get us to sign!

Clear back in October, 1945 the U.N. was put together as a group of countries with seemingly high goals to support human rights and fair ball, dealing with economic and security issues internationally. However, over the years the alleged ‘need solving’ spirit of the U.N. has turned into a largely, Islamic controlled, global elitist, anti American body of elitists. They act as an Islamically inspired, communist pimp and they think the U.S. is their stupid whore.

They are most in love and committed to redistribution of wealth, socialism and cradle to grave control. We have seen the international take over plans attempting to suck the blood out of the U.S. with their environmental, global warming, international tax push, Rights of the child push, global control and regulation of guns push and now meddling with States rights and laws.

The story continues …..

One Comment leave one →
  1. Richard permalink
    May 15, 2010 2:34 pm

    Ms. Roth makes good points. She seems, however, in her writing, to suggest that entering into such treaties would, in fact, be LAW in the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth, the provision of the Constitution notwithstanding. IF any such treaty were to to, in any way/manner, set aside, over-ride, or otherwise deny the power(protection(s)) of that Constitution said treaty is void, and has no force and effect of law.

    She either fails to realize, or fails to educate the reader’s of her article on the following basic facts: The president, and Senators who would sign, and ratify, respectively, the treaty DERIVE their power, (authority) FROM and UNDER the Constitution; they, president and Senators, have taken an oath to support and defend said Constitution. They have no authority to enter into a treaty which would, in effect and fact supesede the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights.

    To suggest that a treaty which might, for example, become a law and which would deny individual firearms ownership, is to suggest that said treaty, which WAS entered into under/trhough constitutional authority, can now somehow be superior(over-ride, or otehrwise supersede) the Constitution is fallacious.

    Were the president and Senate approve of such a treaty, AND then attempt to enforce it upon the nation would be a clear violation of their respective oath(s); specificall, in law, they will have perjured their oath(s); and in so doing have abdicated their right to “possess” title to the office(s) they hold. I would go so far as to say that they would, under such circumstances, have committed treason in so far as the definition of treason is udnerstood.

    I could care less about any such treaties being entered into; those which would deny, or set-aside any constitutional protection(s). Such a treaty is, in fact, void on it’s face; have no legal force and effect of law in the nation and upon it’s people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: