Obama to sign U.N. Firearms Treaty the Senate rejected

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

President Barack Obama will soon sign an international arms trade treaty that has been previously rejected by the United States Senate.

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) establishes regulations for international arms sales. Categories of firearms listed in the treaty includes tanks, artillery, and small arms such as handguns. The U.N. General Assembly passed the treaty on April 2nd with a vote of 153-4, with the United States voting in favor. Obama intends to sign the treaty on June 3rd.

On March 23rd, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment to prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty. It passed by a vote of 53 to 46.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced another amendment to ensure “that the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States.” This amendment passed in the Senate by a voice vote.

Signatories of the treaty are encouraged to keep records on the recipients of imported arms and to introduce domestic legislation to support the treaty’s requirements, according to the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.

Due to the Senate’s response to the treaty, Obama’s signature will be symbolic at best. According to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

There was a time when I was prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and saw a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric as an attack on his color and background but, I have to say, actions speak louder than words and it is now more than obvious what he is.

In fact, if President Obama signs this UN treaty, which the Senate has refused to endorse he is in total violation of the US Constitution and thus, in theory and practice, becomes “an enemy of the Constitution” and traitor.

© 2013

Montanans announce recall campaigns against NDAA Supporting Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to Bitronic Technologies Newswire Montanans have announced a recall campaigns against NDAA supporting Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for the NDAA have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

Brooklyn, NY, January 2012 : Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which according to the American Civil Liberties Union allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Montana law requires stated grounds for recall which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

According to Ralph Lopez of the Salem News "[The] National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, 'for the duration of hostilities' in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as 'task which does not end' to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for the NDAA have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, a group of military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens.

Rhodes said: "These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."

Rhodes noted further that: "Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight."

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, ten states recall laws do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:

"today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."

Montana would be the recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.

Personally I, however, would advise anyone concerned about this act and what it stands for, if they are concerned about their and their families' safety and security, NOT, and I repeat, NOT, to sign any online petitions against this bill, etc.

Why do I say that? Because you do not know who or what is behind those online petitions and – and I am saying this with my conspiracy theorists hat on – any such petitions, for if they are to be legally valid will require you to give valid name, address, and email address, could just be a vehicle for the gathering of information on opponents to this bill.

Anyone opposing could, under the law, if whoever wants to interpret it like that, be regarded as a terrorist or someone having terrorist sympathies and thus could be liable to arrest.

Welcome to Police State USA... Britain is not far behind you, and neither the EU, of that we can rest assured.

© 2012

Bitronic Technologies Opposes the NDAA

Bitronic Technologies Opposes the NDAA Which Allegedly Allows the Indefinite Imprisonment of American Citizens Without a Trial

Bitronic Technologies Opposes the NDAA Which Allegedly Allows the Indefinite Imprisonment of American Citizens Without a Trial, says the company's founder Bryan Apperson

Said document grants to our government absolute and near dictatorial powers over American citizens primarily to silence dissent to corrupt leadership

2012 US Terrorist Identification Chart

New York, NY, January 2012 : The vocal owner (Bryan Apperson) of Bitronic Technologies, a web design and hosting company voiced his companies stance on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 on January 5, 2011.

Apperson was quoted as saying, "People in this country right now are - for the first time in most people's memory concerned on a mass scale about where their rent's going to come from; where their next meal is going to come from. They're not even worried about putting their kid through college or things that most people consider luxuries, but the people have expected here in this country."

And Apperson further stated: "Now people in America are worried about the things that people around the world have been worried about for a very long time, and so the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 seems somewhat esoteric to people, because there hasn't been much coverage in the commercial media here, and because they're preoccupied with their survival."

According to the article from The New York Times - After Struggle on Detainees, Obama Signs Defense Bill, President Obama has endorsed the NDAA of 2012.

Apperson Stated "President Barack Obama and all of the Republican Presidential candidates excluding Ron Paul voted in favor of this bill.

Subsection 1021 of the NDAA in combination with elements referenced in the AUMF Bill of 2001 cement the idea that the United States Government can detain anyone inclusive of U.S. Citizens, indefinitely." There’s been a ton of confusion over the bill and Obama even cited reservations with the language of the bill however according to Human Rights First, he signed the bill on New Years Eve while vacationing in Hawaii.

Further according to Fox News "In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy.

While voicing reservations, Obama reportedly signed the act because it guarantees continued military funding. He promised the provisions would comply 'with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.'

President Obama is criticized for his decision to sign a sprawling defense bill which includes controversial detainee provisions.

But human rights groups on the left say future presidents may apply the law differently, adding the act is a sweeping expansion of executive power -- beyond what was seen under the Bush administration. The ACLU and others slammed the president for putting his name to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, out of concern that it would continue to allow indefinite detention while mandating military custody for some detainees."

According to the International Business Times, the only Republican presidential candidate that did not support this violation was Ron Paul the Republican representative from Texas. This bill has been for the past 49 years a defense budget but now section 1021 authorizes the indefinite detention of "covered persons" which includes American Citizens as outlined in the subsections of section 1021.

Bryan Apperson Continued by saying, "If the interpretations of this law are misused, this unconstitutional and draconian law brings may bring the U.S.A back to a level of freedom that predates the 1215 Magna Carta. According to subsection 1021 of the NDAA of 2012, which has now been signed into law, the government can now allegedly imprison citizens without a trial or charge as of the signing."

The United States Constitution states in Article II Subsection one regarding the executive branch: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

The president now may be in breach of our Constitution and if so, under Article II Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Bitronic Technologies stance strongly urges the American people to "fight for our Constitutional rights, and not to stand for this tyranny."

Disclosure & Disclaimer Statement: This article is for your information only and the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.