Administratively Biden’s WHO treaty amendment recommendations are valid. People are shocked by this and I am stymied as to why it is popping up now when this was an active issue back last May. Organizations often function on emotionalism. I often wonder if that is not a fund raising ploy. Our Sovereignty became minimized since Harry Truman. I’ll get to that later in the program and references below.
With that, the O’Biden administration submitted amendments have validity based on at least two pillars. First off, what O’Biden is doing is not a new treaty but amending the existing UN Treaty, Chapter IX. Health, which established the WHO and delineated its already over-reaching authority. Second, the new language is such that all UN member states will accept these changes with an ‘out’ the statement: “The State Party shall accept or reject such” of the various amendment points where the statement is used, which is a bunch of times. Here is the actual recommended WHO Constitution amended document.
For the most part, US Citizens have no concept of Treaties and International Executive Agreements, known as Executive Agreements that have been and are affecting our Constitutional Republic for over 100 years. On this program I take you through the titles of just Afghanistan’s treaties and agreements with US. I have not seen anything in the State Department or Federal Register that negates/dissolves these treaties and agreements. Therefore, regarding Afghanistan, in the principles of International Law, we are on the hook to honor them… Ugg.
Consolidated Government Not the Republic You Thought It Was
Continuing to enhance the program on video and then putting the archive segments up on the SamuelAdamsReturns YouTube channel. Videos posted on Sunday.
In preparing for today’s program I was digging in on the Senate from the Anti-federalists perspective when I was surprised by what I’ve previously read. You know how something jumps out as if it is fresh and new. In the Founders Constitutions I was going through the topic of ‘Popular Basis for Government’ and a series of the Anti-federalists hit our present situation of despotic oligarchy right on the head. Simply, The Constitution as it is today and from the beginning is not the idea of a Republic that we think it is. Continue reading →
Comments Off on 8-5-17 Consolidated Government Not the Republic You Thought It Was
Article VI: From ‘Who Is Sovereign’ to Health Care Mandate
I want to pick up this week from last by furthering the discussion on Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. First in this discussion must be the question: “Who is the sovereign and who is ultimate in universal sovereignty?” Then we turn to the Founders’ regarding intent of Article VI, Clause 2
With that the next questions is: “How do treaties apply to the law of the land?” I intend to take in the international agreement mandates for universal health care. How do these treaties and international agreement entanglements affect policy making if neither have been ratified or confirmed? Reference items #7 and #8 below get to the detail of this issue. Don’t Be Fooled in Item #5 about non-binding. That is misleading when you look at Item #6 **** note. Continue reading →
Comments Off on 7-1-17 Article VI: From ‘Who Is Sovereign’ to Health Care Mandate
Many Conservatives and those in the Patriot movement keep calling on Congress to “Stand on the Constitution”, “Abide by the Constitution” or “Act according to the Constitutions”. Well, I’m here to tell you that – They Are!
This week I give you only the extreme tip of the iceberg from my Presentation/lecture on the ‘Tale of Two Constitutions” and focus on the Constitution Vs Constitutionalism. I again take you through the very tip of the effects of Article VI. So I want to take you through this – reality that the ‘framework’ that everyone is charging Congress to uphold should be influenced by implementation of Founders Intent – but what are the actual influential 20th & 21st Centuries thoughts on Constitutionalism? Do you know the difference? Continue reading →
Comments Off on 6-24-17 Constitution Vs Constitutionalism
This week has seen the sad testimony of a self-admittedly “weak man”, Mr. Comey. One of the sickest commentaries I’ve heard from someone who is suppose to be the epitome of the justice department. I have fired employees for less but deception and excuses as what Comey represented would be grounds for immediately being walked out the door. But, that is not what this weeks program is about.
Not only was I updating my lecture presentation for the coming Tuesday at the Geauga County TEA Party meeting but I became engaged in a Facebook conversation on the Liberty Radio Networks FB page. This conversation was related to a post about exiting the Paris Accord and that we have not really exited it. Well, the answer is ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. I don’t get into the details of the exit but the larger conversation regarding the Constitutionality of the Accord in the first place. Continue reading →
Comments Off on 6-10-17 From Rio to Paris, Constitution that Was and Is
On this broadcast of Samuel Adams Returns – The Anti-federalist Got It Right, ( www.lwrn.net ) I continue the discussion of how the Senate is now a part of democracy and not the Republic to which it was intended. Then I get into a real sore spot, Treaties and International Executive Agreements. De Tocqueville wrote that if tyranny would engross America, it would a ‘soft despotism” that arose through elected administrators. For over 100 years we have been electing administrators over statesmen, socialism entered into this nation since the early 1800’s and infiltrated the core principles of We the People so that most do not have the concept of what Foundational Liberty is about.
Hence we have had since the 1930’s International Executive Agreements at a ratio of almost 20:1 over treaties that have established that ‘soft despotism’ and stripped us of our individual and national sovereignty, making us serfs in the globalist dream.
All audios below are in radio programs segment order:
The Anti-federalist view of the Senate – Segment 1
The Anti-federalist view of the Senate – Segment 2
The Anti-federalist view of the Senate – Segment 3