IMMIGRATION
Is Government's Inaction Legal or a Criminal Act?
BACKGROUND - Many people are concerned over the Federal government’s failure to act to stop the flow of immigrants into the United States. This raises the question: are those responsible for the inaction guilty of subversion, rebellion, insurrection, and/or treason or are they following their perception of the law? Here are some facts. YOU DECIDE!
FACT - The U.S., via an unlawful Treaty, joined (created) the United Nations in 1945. In Senate testimony on May 11, 1955, former American Bar Association President Carl Rix said: "Congress is no longer bound by its Constitutional system of delegated power…..Congress may now legislate as an uninhibited body with no shackles of delegated powers under the Constitution. Our entire system of government of delegated powers of Congress has been changed to a system of undelegated power without amendment [of the Constitution ] by the people of the United States."
FACT - Article 3 of UN Resolution 2312 reads: “No person shall be subject to measures such as rejection at the frontier [border] or if he has already entered the territory in which he seeks asylum, expulsion or compulsory return to any state where he may be subject to persecution.”
FACT - President Clinton issued EO 13107 on 1-10-99. It reads in part: "Sec. 4. Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties.
(a) There is hereby established an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties ….. (c) The principal functions of the Interagency Working Group shall include:
“developing effective mechanisms to ensure that legislation proposed by the Administration is reviewed for conformity with international human rights obligations and that these obligations are taken into account in reviewing legislation under consideration by the Congress as well” and “developing....mechanisms for....monitoring of all actions by the various States…. laws for their conformity with relevant treaties...."
DISCUSSION - It’s self evident the "monitoring" of "actions" and "laws" to insure conformity with relevant treaties amounts to an acceptance of treaties as being superior to our Constitution. This is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court‘s statement saying: "This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty" (Reid v Covert); to Art. I, Sec.1 of the Constitution stating: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” and to Art. II Sec. 2 of the Constitution which states: “He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties”.
Since the House of Representatives must be included in the making of all laws but are excluded from the treaty process,
logic suggests treaties cannot be used to create new laws. If the Federal government were to express a desire to protect us from invasion as it is required to do by the Constitution and issue a call for volunteers to help do so, I suspect the response would be overwhelming.
DECISIONS REQUIRED - Each of us must decide if we believe the Federal government's inaction re. immigrants to be lawful in light of the UN treaty, if we accept that treaties can be lawfully used to amend the Constitution or render it obsolete and if not, if we should get involved in helping assure that the U. S. gets out of the U.N. and subsequently enforces its own laws governing immigration. For more information on unconstitutional acts see: www.thecnc.org/Unconstitutional.htm and http://thecnc.org/Call2Action.htm.
Could it be the Federal government isn't serious about securing our border or honoring Art. IV Sec 4 of our Constitution is because WE NO LONGER HAVE A DEFINED BORDER; only a 124 mile wide Zone of Cooperation extending 62 miles either side of where the border used to be? This resulted from NAFTA and it's sovereignty destroying "Borders 21/LaPaz sidebar.
Additionally, ART. 3 of U.N. Resolution 2312 says: “No person shall be subject to measures such as rejection at the frontier [border] ……” and in the March 2005 "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" agreement signed by President Bush, it was agreed a Council on Foreign Relation’s report titled "Building a North American Community" would be pursued. It says “Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely.”
The FG can't secure our border. We don't have one; only a Zone of Cooperation extending 62 miles either
side of where it was due to NAFTA and it's sovereignty destroying 'Borders 21/LaPaz sidebar'. Also U.N. Resolution 2312 says: “No person shall be subject to measures such as rejection at the frontier [border] ……” and the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" agreement signed by President Bush titled "Building a North American Community" says “Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely.”
***********************************************************
Arizona Has A Case (Short Of Secession) For Billions In Damages From Uncle Sam
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542468&obref=outbrain
By JOSEPH R. EVANNS AND EGON MITTELMANN
Posted 08/03/2010
In federal lawsuits, defendants may answer litigation filed against them with a counterclaim against the plaintiff for damages or other relief. The Constitution of the United States mandates at Article 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government ... that the United States shall protect each of them (the states) against invasion and ... against domestic violence." (Emphasis added) "Republican form of government" is defined as a republic that is a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives to exercise that power.
To "guarantee" means to warrant or undertake that something has happened or will happen. The term "invasion" is (regarding a country or territory ) a hostile incursion. The term "shall" used in the third person singular denotes an imperative, without discretion or choice. Thus, the phrase "shall guarantee" leaves no wiggle room.
Remedies for breach of guarantee are damages (expenses incurred in repairing guaranteed product) or rescission (return of product for refund of purchase price — i.e., "money back" guarantee). Recently, the federal government — the present regime in particular — has not only violated the guarantee of republican form of government and the pledge to protect
Arizona from invasion and domestic violence, but has actively worked to achieve the exact opposite result.
By the federal government's determined resistance to enforcing existing federal law against illegal immigration and attempting to penalize Arizona for attempting to cope with illegal immigration on its own, the federal government has crassly flouted its obligation to guarantee a republican form of government for the state of Arizona.
One of the most effective means for destroying a republic is to bankrupt it and beggar its people. This is what befell Rome, which went from a republic to what would now be called a dictatorship as a result of the financial drain on the country resulting from the empire.
In the case of Arizona, recent figures disclose that illegal immigration costs the state $2.5 billion annually. This amounts to approximately $400 for every man, woman and child in the state, which has a population of less than 7 million. The federal government has not only filed litigation against Arizona, but informed an association of Arizona sheriffs that it intends to prosecute as an example at least one deputy for enforcing Arizona's anti-illegal immigration legislation (SB 1070
http://tinyurl.com/y2r38qc ).
There are reports the administration is seeking ways to cease doing business with Arizona and is encouraging other states to do the same, to exercise economic coercion on the state.
Comments