Jump to content
I3DI

Un Troops Claim - HB30 Violation of Soverign Powers of United States (FORCE AUTHORIZED)

Recommended Posts

Author of the topic Posted
On 1/4/2020 at 8:12 AM, SecurityGuy42 said:

I think they will ram thru all the gun control bills on the 8th and 9th so by the time of the rally on the 20th it is a mute point.  Do things so quickly no one will have time to react to stop it.  Which would make sense with the budgeting bills Northam has put forward.

 

I agree with SecurityGuy, traditionally, yes, that would be the proper route.  However, just want to make sure you understand, we don't have law.  They have poked so many holes in law, I could shoot a boat all day and not come close to the number of holes in law.  You also must remember, these people abide by only one law, there are no laws but they know you have them and will follow them.  Ultimately if you can't win playing by their laws, or what hasn't been touched on the books and is still legal, then, chalk it up to, theft of votes which is validated in testimony and taking away of legal recourse, the only two routes available in this country, so then your down to bloody noses.

 

That's why they keep coming and we've let them come so long, trying to reason, they have done tons of damage, so much, you may be down to bloody noses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Randi Altman said:

This whole gun thing is an irrelevancy.  We are going to be fighting a bigger war

Consider that 198 countries have signed the 2030 agenda, giving 70% of their power to the UN.  That leaves 8.  There are 8 sovereign countries left in the world .against the UN.  

“Fire will rain from the sky and the living will envy the dead”—Our Lady of Akita                  10/6/2019

 

 

Randi, I do agree with you that ... to the UN ... gun control is an irrelevancy.  However, they know that the United States is the most powerful nation on Earth, and if it is to be "sustainably" integrated in any global scheme, that will not happen as long as hundreds of millions of guns exist in the hands of private citizens in the US.  If the United States is to maintain its freedoms, we have to remain armed, as a standing threat against a tyranny in America, and global "unity" ... a bigger tyranny.  I am aware of the 2030 Agenda, which grew out of the Agenda 21.

 

God, I hate the term "sustainability".  Every time I see it, I see, I wince, and want to grab my rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 11:23 PM, RevRifleman said:

Thoughts?

 

 

 

Blue helmets and body armor.  But there are places to hit them, and bring them down.  Even the helmets, though made of Kevlar, if they're hit hard enough ... I use 7.62mm rounds ... will knock a man senseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted
13 hours ago, Headhunter said:

 

Randi, I do agree with you that ... to the UN ... gun control is an irrelevancy.  However, they know that the United States is the most powerful nation on Earth, and if it is to be "sustainably" integrated in any global scheme, that will not happen as long as hundreds of millions of guns exist in the hands of private citizens in the US.  If the United States is to maintain its freedoms, we have to remain armed, as a standing threat against a tyranny in America, and global "unity" ... a bigger tyranny.  I am aware of the 2030 Agenda, which grew out of the Agenda 21.

 

God, I hate the term "sustainability".  Every time I see it, I see, I wince, and want to grab my rifle.

I'll be honest with you, the way you change things and prevent stuff is first, regain the moral bedrock.  I am told by Appellate lawyers that natural law, which is about GOD and your rights is only argued at the Supreme Court, not in lower courts.  Why would that be?  You can't take out natural law, leave it in the hands of a select few in defiance of centralization and expect anything other then what your seeing.

 

The very first thing that needs to be done is these invalid legislation's against men.  Many state legislation's are crimes.  Violate our constitution and are geared towards men and especially veterans right now.  When I can ask a judge, "How do you measure fear?" and he wont answer that question, it's because he can't.  The answer all around over two years of asking this simple question has been the same across the board.  I won't tell you the answer, you can answer it your self.  Fear is subjective.  Measurement, that is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, and when you take it out, you remove the limitation on judges, government as a whole.  So the place to start really is backing the smaller issues and putting the fear of God in these people aiding and abetting these legislation's.  That's right, when you perpetuate the abuse of powers in legislation and the abuses there of on the people, your as guilty as the ones committing it.  When your down to one mans feeling on what something is worth on sentencing day, you better hope to God he is not having a bad day.  

 

Authorizing the abduction of children legally at the mans expense, that right there violates the judiciary charge of protecting my property.  Yeah, the child is a human life, but I steward him tell he is eighteen that makes him my property.  But, more importantly, why are they in family?  How do you measure a relationship?  How do you measure the decision to create a human life?  How do you measure when it goes bad?  How do you measure the time spent with that child between two parents?  The answer is the same across the board and no judge would answer this directly because they would be admitting fault.

 

These are the first issues that need to be addressed and they aren't being fixed by demonstration, trillions of dollars, millions of men and women in court, thousands of legal arguments.  The government involvement in family was simply about making money, impoverishing men, abusing them to holy hell, and eventually their nature comes out now they criminalize a response under the abuse as a felony.  You know, people only take so much abuse then they respond.  They can look at me and tell me to change my point of view, after mentioning the above at what point does the legal system say, "Hey this isn't working, I think it's time to change our point of view, change our presentation, alter our course."?  One lawyer told me, the law is resistant to change.  I responded, "No, these evil people are resistant to the laws changing because if they did, they would be in prison."

 

Really, it's time to support all the men, rally around them in the minor issues, because these judges and DA's they respond to majority consensus and public opinion.  The truth is, courts should be available to all at no cost, they should be funded first above all else by government, in matters of family, the most you can do is assign the child to one parent, shut down payments, you can measure that and it's about impoverishment and making money at the same time.  Tell them to work it out.  She spread her legs, made a bad life decisions, he made a bad life decision, God and nature have a way of issuing their own consequences.  Do you believe the government has the budget and capacity to administrate everyone's lief decisions, angry statements, and are statement's subjective?  You bet.  If you can't measure it, get out of it and that's really where the change begins.  Any men being assaulted by the courts in any issue, political, family, we should all be showing up in mass, and supporting their ass, demanding they retract their tentacles and saying loud and clear, "Tired of the abuse and your perpetuation the abuses of those abusing their power on the men of this country.  Get out or expect the worse."

 

The laws must be reformed and those administrating and perpetuating very obvious crimes against the people, make them aware, it's aiding and abetting, same as following a immoral order, demand they start fighting back and defying these things and that will make a huge difference.  Fear is not always terroristic, my God, think about it, a man blows after being provoked with his own children, and he's charged with Terroristic Threats.  Well, every time you convict on that your convicting our most historic figures that made Terrorist threats, Doc Holiday, Wyatt Earp, General Patton.  That is the short list.  You really can't prove the intention, a man can just blow under the abuse and have no regard or intent, just a angry outburst.  How do you really establish intent to commit fear?  Its entirely subjective.  But it's on the books and you should see Ohio's statute people, even a protest they can wrap you up for the same thing, it's that broad.

 

Red Fla laws, extra-judicial.  You don't have law.  My greatest desire is people will support me and be willing to show up and support me against this crap.  Use my kids, provoke me, yeah, a man blows.  Creating felons out of men for their nature.  Ridiculous.  Break your own law you claim to uphold over and over to fit what you want, that's not law anymore.  That's why your seeing the collapse.  Should deal with abortion, and these smaller family issues in mass and all this non-legit legislation first, which would throw this crap back at Congress, making them accountable. Your state legislatures for aiding and abetting to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Moves To Withdraw U.S. From U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

April 26, 20192:53 PM ET
 

“President Trump effectively "unsigned" an international arms sales agreement Friday, moving to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. The agreement sets global standards for regulating transfers of conventional arms, from rifles to tanks and airplanes. 

 

The treaty, known as the ATT, has been in effect since late 2014. The U.S. signed on to the agreement in 2013 but has not ratified the treaty.

The U.S. withdrawal had been expected. Trump made it official at the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Indianapolis, pulling out a pen onstage and signing a paper that he said would take back the Obama administration's signature on behalf of the U.S. 

 

The ATT has long been a target of the NRA, which claimed it would harm U.S. gun owners. Trump echoed that criticism on Friday, calling the ATT a threat to Second Amendment rights. "We will never surrender America's sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy," Trump was quoted as saying, in a White House statement announcing the change.” ...

 
 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/26/717547741/trump-moves-to-withdraw-u-s-from-u-n-arms-trade-treaty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't forgotten about this, I am just  coming back to it and I didn't bother going back over the responses to anything I have said,  a couple of things I am curious about for those who believe the U.N can just waltz in any time it deems fit to do what ever to US citizens. ( I phrase it as such because that is the notion that is portrayed that the UN can indeed do just that )  An one I do realize the UN is headquartered in the USA, and that really means nothing. Because the name is, United Nations, not the N.W.O Not an evil layer that is overtly covert hidden right in front of ones nose. If the US government really wanted to, they could easily tell the UN HQ to pack up and go else where, and the UNITED NATIONS would still be THE UNITED NATIONS, where it is headquartered doesn't mean jack.

 

So everyone wants to spout on about woooo the USA Signed this and this and this. Slow claps bravo, the US government signs a lot of things. What I want to see is a website, something ending in a .gov or some kind of official government link, that spells things out, and not in vague words either that are subject to interpretation saying IF the UN decides for what ever reason to invade the USA it can, and more over some where , showing where the US Congress, Senate and President signed off on that specifically.   Because it just doesn't exist. What does probably exist, is a document that says to some legal jargon in some form, that the USA is a signatory to some level with the UN, an that in turn means that when things erupt with others signed on to the UN and someone threatens a member of the UN that the USA can get involved militarily, or vise verse, if someone threatens the sovergnty of the USA ipsofacto the UN steps in to help. Which some might want to scream AH HA SEE THERE YOU GO !  well it isn't that simple. on either side, one, The USA signs treaties all over the place not just the UN, that states in simplest form, if you hurt our alley we are coming for you, and same, you hurt us , you deal with our friends.   There is also a common understanding among all nations, that all nations are sovereign nation with their own constitutions and such. just because they sign a treaty , or are apart of the UN, doesn't mean that the second something happens that the other has to bounce on it, that the UN has to jump into action.  There isn't a red button that gets pushed when things hit the fan and then the tyrannical UN comes marching in. Which mind you as everyone knows is signed by other level headed countries, not a sinister club hiding in the dark.  Dignitaries, ambassadors, presidents, etc all have to start talking to each other before anything happens.  You want to know why the UN is never going to act in force on the USA for any reason. Here are just a few examples.

 

as already stated, national disasters,  have we seen one UN trooper or UN vehicle, when that Katrina happened, would of been a fine example to send in the UN, how about the riots in Ferguson , would of been another great time to send in UN troops then. What about any time ever in the history of the USA when a US Embassy has been attacked, excellent time to send in the UN forces for help. More over, how about Iraq or Afghanistan , or Syria or Iran, where is the UN troop involvement there ? Besides none.  The UN armed force is nothing more than toothless shark, that at best, and with a lot of complaining, assembles to be a police presence in some worn torn area for maybe a year tops. An then packs it in.   The UN it self,  is nothing but a waste of real estate on US soil, and as an entity is just a joke in general and a waste of political time. A sand box to chew the fat, and posture, and do back door dealings.

 

I do not fall into the Alex Jones fan boy club, and get wet at the idea of what the UN could in a hypothetical theory in a SHTF scenerio do one day, an more over, I don't believe anything Alex Jones says, I just mention him because he is the type to preach about things like the UN, whip as many people up into a frenzy as possible, only tell a fraction of the truth, then run around and tell everyone he is some kind of super news man as if he became Ron Burgundy. Is he entertaining, sure, is he some kind reliable news source, no, he is just a wana be Rush Limbaugh at best and doing a very poor job of it.  But look, I am sincerely interested in any official government link that shows, in simple wording, using the words UN TROOPS CAN BE DEPLOYED IN THE USA FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, signed by the UN, and  all three branches of the US Government.  The insanity of that, is about as rational as saying, well since we have a treaty with Britain , US Troops can be deployed any time to Britain if the USA feels like it needs to step in.   An that just isn't the way things work.  Sure Obama signed something some where, good for him, but ya got to look to see where the laws are for 2020 not 10 years ago, things change fast, and then you have to discern how much of a threat a law is.  Obama care was a nightmare, most of the teeth of Obama care have been ripped out. More over people were whining about ooo the govbment gonna getcha you don't sign up ! you're gonna lose your home and be thrown in jail ! uh huh, sure.  Like saying you are going to lose your home and get thrown in prison and fined for Jay walking.

 

Are there organizations and politicans out there wanting to destroy the American way of life, sure there are, they are liberal leftists, communists, marxists, socialists and democrats, all pretty much lumped together now.  I don't subscribe to any " deep state " notion, because it is just too broad and vague.  But we have Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons working hard to get Trump thrown out,  and what is nerving, is that 4 Republicans is what the democrats need, 4 yellow bellied Republicans to throw it all away.

 

An who is to blame, really the democrats are no longer to blame for anything, we know their play book, we know their motives, we know how they move and act and provoke and react. Who is to blame are the conservatives and republicans who do not come out in force each and every chance to vote to keep good people in office, and do not remove bad republicans from office and replace them with better ones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...