Archive for February 23, 2023

The latest move by the Biden Regime rises to the level of treason because they are planning on implementing a treaty that would surrender the sovereignty of the United States over to World Health Organization.  To accomplish this they are doing an end run around the Constitution of the United States because they are implementing the treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Here is the clause of the treaty that is designed to supposedly grant the United States, and all other nations, the authority to circumnavigate legislative approval.

The WHO CA+ may be applied provisionally, in whole or in part, by a signatory and/or Party that consents to its provisional application by so notifying the Depositary in writing at the time of signature of the instrument, or signature or deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession. Such provisional application shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The despicable and corrupt process is documented in this article from The Epoch Times.

“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said. In addition, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals, and health officials.”

There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may support the Biden administration’s position. They include State of Missouri v. Holland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws, while other decisions, such as United States v. Belmont, ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent can be legally binding, with the force of treaties.

According to the zero draft, signatories would agree to “strengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level.” They will also implement a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach at the national level” that will include national governments, local governments, and private companies.

The author of the article is suffering from several common and dangerous delusions.  The first is the belief that the Supreme Court issues rulings that are in any way based on the Constitution of the United States.  Another is the belief that the Supreme Court has the authority to grant a branch of the federal government the power to completely disregard the plain text of the Constitution.  The final delusion is the belief that only the Supreme Court has the authority to declare that a given law or treaty violates the Constitution.

Here is a summary of The United States v. Belmont ruling.

 301 U.S. 324 (1937), was a dispute between the federal executive branch and the State of New York over property rights to a deposit from a former Russian corporation with August Belmont & Company, a private New York City banking firm. Belmont established executive predominance over state laws and constitutions in the sphere of foreign policy, and allocated the constitutional power for initiating executive agreements solely to the president of the United States.[

By examining the actual text of Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2, it becomes obvious that the Supreme Court made a grave constitutional error with that ruling.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur

From the text of the Supremacy Clause, which is  Article 6 Section 2, you can see that only treaties passed through the formal constitutional process are the law of the land.  Agreements signed by just the president are not listed therefore they are not the law of the land.

 This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In Federalist Paper 75 Alexander Hamilton discusses the treaty making power granted in the Constitution.  No president has the constitutional authority to enter into any form of treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate.

The president is to have power “by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.” Though this provision has been assailed on different grounds, with no small degree of vehemence, I scruple not to declare my firm persuasion, that it is one of the best digested and most unexceptionable parts of the plan. One ground of objection is, the trite topic of the intermixture of powers; some contending that the president ought alone to possess the power of making treaties; and others, that it ought to have been exclusively deposited in the senate. Another source of objection is derived from the small number of persons by whom a treaty may be made: Of those who espouse this objection, a part are of opinion that the house of representatives ought to have been associated in the business, while another part seem to think that nothing more was necessary than to have substituted two-thirds of all the members of the senate to two-thirds of the members present. As I flatter myself the observations made in a preceding number, upon this part of the plan, must have sufficed to place it to a discerning eye in a very favourable light, I shall here content myself with offering only some supplementary remarks, principally with a view to the objections which have been just stated.

With regard to the intermixture of powers, I shall rely upon the explanations already given, in other places of the true sense of the rule, upon which that objection is founded; and shall take it for granted, as an inference from them, that the union of the executive with the senate, in the article of treaties, is no infringement of that rule. I venture to add that the particular nature of the power of making treaties indicates a peculiar propriety in that union. Though several writers on the subject of government place that power in the class of executive authorities, yet this is evidently an arbitrary disposition: For if we attend carefully to its operation, it will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the executive character, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the definition of either of them. The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or in other words to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society. While the execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defence, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate. The power of making treaties is plainly neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones, and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong properly neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed, as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a part of the legislative body in the office of making them.

I’ve written both about Donald Trump’s attacks on Ron DeSantis as being a bad idea and I further wrote that if DeSantis wants to strike back all he needs to do is invoke Fauci.

So that still leaves the question: How does Donald Trump counter a popular governor like DeSantis with a strong record and a reputation for fighting the fights conservatives need fighting.

The answer can be found in Lyndon Johnson’s first senate campaign where his primary opponent was a fellow named Pappy O’Daniel.

Pappy O’Daniel was an entertainer who parleyed his radio show act into a a fortune selling flour into the governor’s chair in Texas. One of the things he constantly pushed was the idea of a pension

He’d sing, tout Hillbilly Flour, quote scripture, and declare he was fed up with “crooked politics” and “scheming professional politicians.” He promised to pay every Texan over 65 a $30-a-month pension. He didn’t say how he’d fund those pensions, preferring to sell the idea singing lyrics he’d written to the tune of “Let Me Call You Sweetheart”—“Thirty Bucks for Mama.”

Smart types scoffed. Politicians and reporters said Pappy’s crowds came for the circus. But battered Texans yearned for something new. In the Democratic primary, against 11 rivals, Pappy got 51 percent, taking the nomination in a state where Republicans didn’t count. 

When the sitting US Senator Morris Shepard died in office Pappy O’Daniel appointed the 87 year old son of Sam Houston to his seat pending a special election. Lyndon Johnson seeing this as an opening promptly announced his candidacy and Pappy wasn’t far behind.

Johnson as a sitting congressman had a problem. O’Daniel was an immensely popular governor with the voters and while he was happy to be in bed with the various lobbyists (expect for the liquor lobby O’Daniel’s one unshakable principled belief was that booze was a tool of the Devil) an attack on his as corrupt was useless not only because Johnson’s own associations were not all that clean but because of the people still listening to his radio show now done from the Capital wouldn’t buy that the person fighting so hard to get them a pension didn’t care.

So Johnson took a different path. He painted O’Daniel as the indispensable man of Texas the man who was needed in the statehouse to fight for you and your pension here while he (LBJ) could fight for you in the Senate.

It was a stroke of brilliance. O’Daniel has talked about his fight for Pensions in his re-election campaign just six months before and Johnson’s praise of him and his work in Texas made direct attacks on him almost impossible.

In the end it paid off, at least until on election night Johnson let down his guard and allowed his key districts to report which gave an opening for the folks in the Liquor lobby, who wanted Pappy, out of Texas who did this:

Suddenly “late” returns from counties in East Texas where Congressman Martin Dies, another candidate for the open Senate seat, had previously run strong with 46% of the vote with O’Daniel getting 34% and Johnson 11% and a 4th candidate Mann 9%. As Robert Caro put it on paged 738-739 of his 1st volume on Lyndon Johnson:

But Dies did not do as well as he had done earlier. He received only 82 of these “new” votes — not 46 percent but 32 percent, Johnson and Mann didn’t do as well either: Mann received 6 votes or 2 percent; Johnson did particularly badly; he received 3 of the new votes : 1 percent. O’Daniel, who had received 34 percent on the first returns, received 64 percent on these later returns.

This pattern was repeated in county after county in east Texas where O’Daniel’s “Magic Ballots” kept turning up. Johnson manged to get a few “corrected” returns from a few spots but as official returns had been sent in such things were few and far between. He contacted George Paar known as the Duke of Duval who was the power there and bluntly asked for more votes. Duval’s reported reply: “Lyndon I’ve Been to Federal Penitentiary and I’m not Going Back For You” was logical. Because the official numbers had not come from East Texas no matter how many votes he agreed to provide O’Daniel’s folks would simply create more in counties that had not yet reported. In the end his 5000 vote lead became a 1311 vote loss 175,590 to 174,279.

Sound familiar?

Bottom line until O’Daniel’s foes in big Booze stole the election for him Johnson’s plan worked.

If I was advising Donald Trump, I would use the same tactic as LBJ did.

I would point to what was done in Florida and point out that there are plenty of people on the left who want DeSantis out of there. Who want to stop his innovations from spreading to other states. I’d point to his reforms on voting, his strong attacks on the sexualization of children and his taking on woke education and say that America NEEDS DeSantis in Florida to keep it a shining example for the entire nation.

I would compare this to his own reforms on the federal level, and suggest that DeSantis moves are much like his own but on the state level, it’s a great opening for Trump to tout his own record which is without question the best overall record of any 21st century president, from Tax Cuts to prison reform and beyond.. This way he can point to his own initial endorsement of DeSantis in his first campaign and even to some degree take credit for those accomplishments made possible by his own support in his initial election win that was by a small margin. Suddenly DeSantis’ success becomes derivative of his own.

I’d even go one better. I’d point out that Disney would LOVE to get DeSantis out of there and have the chance to try to influence a different perhaps weaker governor who would appoint people of their choosing to boards and commissions to slowly undo all that has already been done. I’d suggest that DeSantis needs at least one more term to solidify these changes and to make sure that the woke legions, led by Disney can’t reverse what has already been done. He owes it to the people who sent him back to make sure the job is done.

It’s the type of argument that has the best chance of not only preventing a DeSantis 2024 campaign but would make attacks on him by DeSantis very difficult.

Anyways that would be my play and I submit and suggest to the Trump campaign that it’s the one most likely to put the nomination in his hands.