Learning To Think Like A Democrat

Democrats believe that Canadian oil is a mortal threat to their survival, but Iranian nukes are nothing to be concerned about.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Learning To Think Like A Democrat

  1. gator69 says:

    They do want to shut down the power grid, and an Iranian launched EMP would do it.

  2. cmm912 says:

    Awesome observation! And unfortunately, too true.

  3. Winnipeg Boy says:

    In their mind; the liberal end game probably looks like the Hunger Games (with them in the city, in power obviously). In reality it ends like Syria or Darfur.

  4. nielszoo says:

    Did you use the words “think” and “Democrat” in the same sentence?

  5. GeologyJim says:

    These are the same Democrats/progressives who blithely dismiss abortion as “woman’s choice/removal of a glob of protoplasm” and also completely ignore routine clitorectomies (forced removal of a young girl’s clitoris with a crude razor) that are commonplace in Muslim societies.

    One can only conclude that Democrats are anti-life/anti-biology.

    The fact that they are opposed to abundant, cheap, reliable energy (which poor people desperately need/want/benefit from) confirms the prior conclusion. That they also ignore the threat of radical Islam demonstrates their commitment to totalitarian rule, regardless of basis.

  6. SxyxS says:

    “Within a year Iran will have an A-Bomb”

    Nethanyahou 1995(and they still don’t have one)

    I guess i’m not american enough for this democrat/republican game where all
    people,no matter which side they support only tend to have the exact same cliché opinion like their favourite party and not an individual mix of reflecting thoughts.

    Before i even start to feel threatened about nukes from iran they don’t have
    i’d first have to start feel threatened by all the atomic weapons terrorist producing islamistic pakistan already owns for decades(and sunnis usually are far more radical than shiis)
    and i’d start to fear the samson options,
    but i guess most people never heard of pakistans A-bomb Arsenal nor the samson option.

    And considering the keystone pipeline:
    That has as much to do with environment as the climate hoax-
    Warren Buffet simply paid Obama and friends to protect his railway oil transport monopol from canada which would’ve become obsolete by the keystone pipeline.

  7. rah says:

    Iran was found liable in a US court of law for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut-marine-barracks-bombing-fast-facts/
    And here we are over 30 years later proving we’ve learned NOTHING!
    There will be a terrible price to pay for this.

  8. Jones says:

    Israel nukes are more dangerous than Iran. And Israel hasn’t signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, but Iran has, and yet CNN/FOX has convinced people that Iran is the problem. Great blog, but I’d stick to climate.

    • rah says:

      Anyone that thinks any treaty signed with Iran is worth the piece of paper it’s written on is a fool!

    • Gail Combs says:

      You Jones, have ZERO understanding of Muslims.

      If you are Kaffir an unbeliever, a Muslim is prohibited from befriending you. He is allowed to lie to you, practice deception and concealment if it is expedient and may conclude peace treaties only while he is at a disadvantage. The treaties are one sided because a treaty is considered broken if an unbeliever attacks Islam with disapproval or criticism or if the Muslims feel they now have the advantage if they decide to resume war. Peace treaties are viewed as “timeouts” and not lasting peace.

      Muslims on the subject of Peace treaties:

      What [these direct quotes below] essentially mean is that Muslims living in the West can pursue a course of peace with their unbelieving neighbors since the latter clearly outnumber the former. Yet when the Muslims muster enough power and wealth to overcome the “infidels” they will be forced to abandon peace and seek to conquer the disbelievers instead.

      In particular, this Islamic teaching destroys any basis for trust in peace treaties made by Muslims. They are never thought to be lasting but only until such time as the Muslims feel strong enough that it is to their advantage to break the peace and attack the unbelievers again. For this reason Islam does not know genuine peace treaties with non-Muslims, i.e. peace treaties that end war once and for all, but only temporary truces that can be dissolved at any time. Is it any wonder that Muhammad is quoted as saying that war is deceit!

      The Quran permits Muslims to accept a peace treaty from the unbelievers whom they are fighting:

      But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in God. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower. S. 8:61 Hilali-Khan

      So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islâm), while you are having the upper hand. God is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds. S. 47:35 Hilali-Khan

      Muslims are commanded not to seek peace with the unbelievers, provided that they are the more dominant party! As the tafsir of Ibn Abbas states:

      (So do not falter) do not weaken, O believer, upon fighting the disbelievers (and cry out for peace) and it is said this means: for Islam before fighting (when you (will be) the uppermost) when you are the victorious and the ultimate consequence will be in your favour, (and Allah is with you) He helps you to defeat your enemy, (and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions) and He will not diminish the works in which you engage during Jihad. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; online source; bold and underline emphasis ours)
      See http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/peace_or_not.html

      • DD More says:

        And let us not forget the language it is to be understood in. Find in looking for “Peace Treaty” defined in Arabic.
        For it turns out there are three different words in Arabic for “peace.” Only one of them is for real. And it’s not the one used at Annapolis, just like it wasn’t the one used at Camp David II, Oslo, or Camp David I. All failed a linguistic test, a test which any real Arab-Israeli agreement must pass, the Test of Suhl.
        The three Arabic words translated as “peace” in English are salaam, hudna, and suhl.

        Salaam is the peace of submission. It’s the drawn out pronunciation of “slm” in “Islam,” (written Arabic has no vowels) the Arabic word for submission and obedience, and in “Moslem” or “Muslim,” the Arabic word for “one who submits.”

        There is peace, salaam, among Moslems when they submit to Allah and the teachings of the Koran. There is peace, salaam, between Moslems and kafirs, infidels, only when the latter submit to the rule of the former.
        In other words, salaam, Moslem peace, is not the absence of violence as it is for us, but the absence of disobedience. Just like it was for the Communists. In Lenin’s words:

        Hudna, the second Arabic word translated in English as “peace,” means cease-fire, a temporary truce.
        When the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, for example, proposes a hudna with Israel, it’s hailed in the Western media as a peace proposal. It is instead a tactical, temporary break in hostilities, giving Moslems time to re-organize, re-arm, then renew the Jihad against the kafirs when they can be most caught off-guard.

        Suhl, the third Arabic term for “peace,” is the most interesting, the one we must insist on Arabs using, the one they always avoid and refuse to use. Suhl means reconciliation.
        The Encyclopedia of Islam describes sulh as a concept of Islamic sharia law:
        The purpose of sulh is to end conflict and hostility among believers so that they may conduct their relationships in peace and amity….In Islamic law, sulh is a form of contract (aqd), legally binding on both the individual and community levels. Note that it applies only between believers. Once again, it’s deuces wild with unbelievers

        Words mean something, even in arabic.

        By the way, Democrats don’t THINK, they FEEL.

    • Gail Combs says:

      This is why the European Union leaders are complete idiots.
      Quotes from the Koran on friendship and treaties with unbelievers

      [“The Tuqyah [practice of deception, lying or concealment for expediency] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” Allah said,

      [وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ]

      The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

      Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said,

      [وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَىْءٍ]

      (And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way) meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah said,

      [يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ عَدُوِّى وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَآءَ تُلْقُونَ إِلَيْهِمْ بِالْمَوَدَّةِ]

      (O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them), until,

      [وَمَن يَفْعَلْهُ مِنكُمْ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَآءَ السَّبِيلِ]

      Allah said next,

      [إِلاَ أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تُقَـةً]

      (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” Allah said,

      [وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ]

      (And Allah warns you against Himself.) meaning, He warns you against His anger and the severe torment He prepared for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends,

      [وَإِلَى اللَّهِ الْمَصِيرُ]

      Allah encourages the believers to show enmity to the idolators and to dissociate from them, affirming that they do not deserve to enjoy a covenant of peace, because of their Shirk in Allah and disbelief in Allah’s Messenger .

      If these disbelievers have a chance to defeat Muslims, they will cause great mischief, leave nothing unharmed, disregard the ties of kinship and the sanctity of their vows. `Ali bin Abi Talhah, `Ikrimah and Al-`Awfi narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, “Ill means kinship, while, Dhimmah means covenant.” Ad-Dahhak and As-Suddi said similarly.

      [اشْتَرَوْاْ بِـَايَـتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً فَصَدُّواْ عَن سَبِيلِهِ إِنَّهُمْ سَآءَ مَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ – لاَ يَرْقُبُونَ فِى مُؤْمِنٍ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُعْتَدُونَ – فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَنُفَصِّلُ الاٌّيَـتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

      Allah says, if the idolators with whom you conducted peace treaties for an appointed term break

      [أَيْمَـنِهِمْ]

      (their oaths) meaning, terms of their treaties, and covenants

      [وَطَعَنُواْ فِى دِينِكُمْ]

      (and attack your religion…) with disapproval and criticism, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought. This is why Allah said afterwards,

      [فَقَـتِلُواْ أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لاَ أَيْمَـنَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنتَهُونَ]

      Therefore, strike the swords upon the parts that contain the devil, for by Allah, it is better to me to kill one of these people than to kill seventy other men. This is because Allah said,

      [فَقَـتِلُواْ أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ]

      (then fight (you) against the leaders of disbelief.)”

      [أَلاَ تُقَـتِلُونَ قَوْماً نَّكَثُواْ أَيْمَـنَهُمْ وَهَمُّواْ بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُم بَدَءُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ أَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَوْهُ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤُمِنِينَ – قَـتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُّؤْمِنِينَ – وَيُذْهِبْ غَيْظَ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَن يَشَآءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ ]

      http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052

    • Gail Combs says:

      GRUMBLE I will try again. WordUNIMPRESSED does not like arabic font within a block quote.
      Quotes from the Koran

      [“The Tuqyah [practice of deception, lying or concealment for expediency] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” Allah said,

      [وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ]

      The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

      Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said,

      [وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَىْءٍ]

      (And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way) meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah said,

      [يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ عَدُوِّى وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَآءَ تُلْقُونَ إِلَيْهِمْ بِالْمَوَدَّةِ]

      (O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them), until,

      [وَمَن يَفْعَلْهُ مِنكُمْ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَآءَ السَّبِيلِ]

      Allah said next,

      [إِلاَ أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تُقَـةً]

      (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” Allah said,

      [وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ]

      (And Allah warns you against Himself.) meaning, He warns you against His anger and the severe torment He prepared for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends,

      [وَإِلَى اللَّهِ الْمَصِيرُ]

      Allah encourages the believers to show enmity to the idolators and to dissociate from them, affirming that they do not deserve to enjoy a covenant of peace, because of their Shirk in Allah and disbelief in Allah’s Messenger .

      If these disbelievers have a chance to defeat Muslims, they will cause great mischief, leave nothing unharmed, disregard the ties of kinship and the sanctity of their vows. `Ali bin Abi Talhah, `Ikrimah and Al-`Awfi narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, “Ill means kinship, while, Dhimmah means covenant.” Ad-Dahhak and As-Suddi said similarly.

      [اشْتَرَوْاْ بِـَايَـتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً فَصَدُّواْ عَن سَبِيلِهِ إِنَّهُمْ سَآءَ مَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ – لاَ يَرْقُبُونَ فِى مُؤْمِنٍ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُعْتَدُونَ – فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَنُفَصِّلُ الاٌّيَـتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

      Allah says, if the idolators with whom you conducted peace treaties for an appointed term break

      [أَيْمَـنِهِمْ]

      (their oaths) meaning, terms of their treaties, and covenants

      [وَطَعَنُواْ فِى دِينِكُمْ]

      (and attack your religion…) with disapproval and criticism, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought. This is why Allah said afterwards,

      [فَقَـتِلُواْ أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لاَ أَيْمَـنَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنتَهُونَ]

      Therefore, strike the swords upon the parts that contain the devil, for by Allah, it is better to me to kill one of these people than to kill seventy other men. This is because Allah said,

      [فَقَـتِلُواْ أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ]

      (then fight (you) against the leaders of disbelief.)”

      [أَلاَ تُقَـتِلُونَ قَوْماً نَّكَثُواْ أَيْمَـنَهُمْ وَهَمُّواْ بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُم بَدَءُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ أَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَوْهُ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤُمِنِينَ – قَـتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُّؤْمِنِينَ – وَيُذْهِبْ غَيْظَ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَن يَشَآءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ ]

      FROM: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052

    • Jl says:

      “Israel nukes are more dangerous than Iran.” Got it. Because one is a democracy and the other one is run by lunatics.

  9. David A says:

    “Israel nukes are more dangerous than Iran”
    =============================================
    In my view Israel nukes are not a threat at all to the US, and certainly not to Israel. A nuclear armed Iran is a grave threat to the world, and only the threat of nuclear retaliation would have any chance of deterring a nuclear armed Iran.

    • Neal S says:

      You may care about your own life and the life of others. But far too many in power in Iran do not share your weaknesses. They believe if they die to further the cause of Islam, that they will be richly rewarded and a number of their family members as well. Whether you believe this or not does not matter. What matters is that THEY believe it.

      Threat of retaliation will in no way deter Iran from using any nukes they can manage to make. Threatening someone who would gladly die with death, is NO deterrent at all. Perhaps you have never been told the story of Brer Rabbit and the briar patch. Killing jihadis is like throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch.

      This is why any sort of deal which practically guarantees that in 10 years (or less) that Iran WILL have nukes is not a good deal at all.

      Do not be fooled. Don’t kid yourself. No matter how much you might not want to be thrown in the briar patch, Brer Rabbit would love to be thrown in there. And Brer Rabbit won’t mind taking as many into that patch with them as they possibly can.

      • gator69 says:

        Ahmadinejad is what is known as a ‘Twelver’. Twelvers believe they must bathe the world in blood and fire to bring back the ’12th Imam’, or ‘Mahdi’, who will bring peace and justice to the world (Caliphate).

        They not only do not fear death and retribution, they hasten and welcome them.

  10. annieoakley says:

    And the US has been getting rid of Nuclear warheads at an alarming rate. In addition the US had missile defenses in Poland and I think Ukraine and Hussain scuttled them. Also identified some of the British Nuclear Armed Subs to the Russians making GB more vulnerable.

  11. rah says:

    I think Obama is trying to find a way of tying the hands of the administration that comes after his. However, any treaty must be ratified by the Senate.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Only in the eye of those who believe in the US Constitution. From the point of view of the rest of the world if the president signs its good. Even here in the USA they have different types of ‘treaties’
      ……

      Oh good I saved my old comment:

      IMPORTANT NEWS on Lima Climate Change Conference

      It looks like OBAMA is going to switch names from TREATY to AGREEMENT which only takes a simple Majority. In this way he gets his treaty to shut down the USA fossil fuel energy without the approval of the Republicans.

      Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

      By Coral Davenport
      nytimes.com — WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, b>but without ratification from Congress.

      What is worse the Supreme Court since the time of FDR betrayed this country.

      Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements: International Commitments in a System of Shared Powers

      Executive agreements do not require super-majority support in the Senate as do formal Article II treaties. Since the 1940s, the vast majority of international agreements have been completed by presidents as executive agreements rather than as treaties. This major policy evolution occurred without changes to the Constitution, though Supreme Court decisions and practice by the political branches have validated the change. This has led some scholars to conclude that the treaty power “has become effectively a Presidential monopoly” (Franck and Weisband 1979: 135; see also Corwin 1984).

      EVEN WORSE

      U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties, which are derived from the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law

      …So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states [nations] at the time the treaty was contracted
      http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/3/1/p97319_index.html?type=info

      IF a president signs a treaty OTHER countries consider it VALID. Therefore it completely depends on WHAT type of enforcement is contained within the treaty itself. For example the World Trade Organization (WTO) has TEETH!!

      Instead of the usual trade treaties for the first time a world organization, WTO, with tough sanction and enforcement powers, was formed. More important, decision making would be secret, with no oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed doors.

      Under WTO rules, countries or Corporations can challenge another’s laws. The case is heard by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats (corporate lawyers). There is no conflict of interest rules binding them, and the names of the judges are kept secret. There is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws, the three judges meet in secret and all court documents are confidential and cannot be published.

      I consider the WTO the trial run for ‘Global Governance’ since it overrides national sovereignty and allows the judges of WTO to overrule national laws.

  12. rah says:

    A ratified treaty is binding on future administrations. Anything else, be it an “agreement” or Executive Order is not.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually even a ratified treaty is not binding.

      The Dulles Boys (KGB agents) were trying to convince every one that treaties are higher on the food chain than the Constitution. This would of course negate US sovereignty which has been a goal since the 1930s.

      …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….

      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.…..

      Source …http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

      • rah says:

        Of course a treaty repugnant to the supreme law of the land should never have been ratified and cannot be fulfilled, much to the disdain of the totalitarians and leftists. How can such an instrument be legal when it would supersede the very authority granted in the Constitution to treat? IOW, the President and the Senate get their authority from the Constitution and so it is impossible for them to go around or abrogate it’s provisions by treaty. To do so is an unconstitutional/illegal act because THE ONLY proscribed method for changing Constitutional laws/provisions is by amendment.

      • Neal S says:

        Yes … I understand “No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution….” If only we could convince the current office holder, and/or congress of this. My dream would be if our congress critters would get a back-bone and grow a set and stop the abuses that have happened and will continue to happen. But I realize that I will only see this in a dream. It seems that those in charge of the henhouse security happen to be the foxes themselves.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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