August 25, 2019

Could Semantics Disarm America?

There is much ado about information that President Obama plans to bypass Congress and the American people in crafting a treaty, that’s a non treaty, with the United Nations on global warming. According to The New American report by Alex Newman, “The radical strategy primarily involves semantics and legal quackery: Instead of calling the controversial scheme a “treaty,” the White House is pursuing what it calls an international “accord.””

One would have to wonder how deeply the game playing of semantics would or could go. The U.S. Constitution, for as little as it applies to the citizens of the United States, says that treaties are the supreme law of the land. If semantics are used so President Obama can fulfill his puppet obligations of kow-towing to the United Nations on global warming, would his action legally become a “treaty?”

Should this happen, i.e. Congress refuses to stop the president and the Supreme Court agrees to recognize any such “accord” as a binding “treaty,” consider the consequences. They are too numerous to even fathom.

In keeping within the context of this website, then I would suspect next in line would be an “accord” to disarm America.

As I have said many times, the only last remaining deterrent to dictatorial tyranny in this country is the fact that millions of Americans own millions of guns. Disarm America and it’s all over.

Share