The Latest on Lady Patriots

John Kerry Sold Us Out – Again

Well, he did it. John Kerry, the traitor ‘n Chief’s international “yes” man signed the small arms treaty. Now we wait to see what the Senate does. I’m sure the betting gets hot and heavy over this one. “Will they, or won’t they?” It wasn’t that long ago that the Senate voted by a vote of 53-46 to keep the US out of the UN’s small arms treaty. Now, once again they will be called upon to vote on whether or not they will ratify this traitorous treaty. If their handling of Obamacare is an example, you can be sure we are in trouble.

I am grateful to our founding fathers and their foresight. They understood that one day we would have corrupt leaders with their own agenda making critical decisions that would affect us all. They entrusted the authority of international treaties to the Executive branch and the Senate.

Americans have believed that treaties with foreign nations, including the U.N., supersede the constitution since before Eisenhower’s election. In 1952 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said:

“Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.”

Of course, this is complete wrong. John Foster Dulles was one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations and a passionate globalist with his own plan. He knew that once an expert says something publicly it cannot be unsaid. While it may be proven wrong, most people will hear and remember what he said and even ignore facts that come out later.

Ever since the idea that a treaty can supersede the Constitution took root in the American mind, we have been afraid of the U.N.’s power grabbing agenda—and rightly so. A landmark case in 1957 reinforced the Constitution’s supremacy. In Reid-v-Covert, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to their decision, the Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the sovereignty of the Constitution over a treaty.

Two-thirds of the Senate must ratify an international treaty and then the President signs it into law. It’s surprising that we have had as many treaties approved by the Senate as we have. Since 1825, they ratified over 1500 treaties and rejected 21.

The U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is supposed to focus on international laws that impact international weapons trade. It’s not supposed to determine what happens inside the U.S. borders. Regardless however, in April, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced an amendment that prevents the U.S. from entering into the treaty. It passed 53-46. This vote supposedly killed the U.N. treaty in the United States and sent a message to the United Nations and to President Obama that he obviously completely missed.

The threat of the United Nations treaty is pressing in again and we must remain vigilant in defending our Second Amendment rights. It’s time for us to once again let Obama’s Washington tools know how we feel. Stay in touch with your Senators and Congressmen; send letters and emails and call them. These snakes in Washington are loyal to one thing, and one thing only. They are moved by the money they can make by selling us out to the highest bidder. It’s time that we get rid of anyone who agrees to ratify this treaty and replace him or her with a whole new crop of real leaders like, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.



Dr. Sharon Schuetz
About Dr. Sharon Schuetz (117 Articles)
Co-Founder / Managing Editor/Author - Dr. Sharon Schuetz has a PhD in clinical Christian counseling. She was Administrator for Cornerstone University, Lake Charles, LA while teaching the graduate program classes for two-years. She served as the national Women’s Ministry Director for her denomination's and District Youth President for the state New Mexico. She organized and spoke at youth camps, marriage retreats, and women's retreats. Dr. Schuetz had a local weekly television show, in Farmington NM called Issues of Our Time, where she interviewed state and local politicians, educators, and leaders from across the state and from different Indian tribes. Dr. Schuetz counseled abused and neglected children and teens for the New Mexico's largest children's home, Four Corners Home for Children in Farmington, NM. She has helped hundreds of couples build stronger relationships through counseling, seminars, workshops, conferences, retreats, and books. She and her husband of 39 years, Michael, have three children and ten grandchildren.
  • ljcarolyne

    Once a traitor always a traitor, just like Obama. These evil guys (Kerry & Obama) are two Muslim peas in a pod, ugly as Hell itself. They are asking for it, so up theirs.

    • Jrr2424

      you is crazy

      • Jrr2424

        why are they taking away your guns and what does that have to do with an international treaty that seeks to stop cross-border shipments of
        conventional weapons — from small arms and missile launchers to tanks,
        warships and attack helicopters — that could enable war crimes, terrorism or human rights violations.

        The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

        • skspls

          Why do you believe the government?

        • hardhat40

          On its face it would appear that way Jrr, but the reality is that registration regimes are mandated by this treaty that failed in Congress. The treaty cedes sovereignty to the UN, a position that no one on any side of the issue would argue is wise.

          • soonanTX

            I would go further. No bureaucrat has the right to cede our sovereignty to the UN or another nation.

      • skspls

        Is you 12?

  • Grumpy

    Geez – From the Soviets and Viet Cong to the Sandinistas and Al Qaeda in Syria our Secretary of State has seldom met an enemy of the United States he couldn’t find a way to support.. Now this in defiance of the US Senate — but Harry Reid won’t notice

    A Nam Vet I know had this to say about Kerry- it’s polite compared to what most of them say

    Hanoi John Reports For Duty Again

  • Marsha Jean Henley

    kerry was he threatened, black mailed or just plan ignorant of what he is doing.

    • drschuetz

      Kerry has always been a traitor who hates America. There are quite a few who are threatened or bribed, but good old Kerry does it for the love of the hate.

  • Pingback: John Kerry Sold Us Out – Again | Lady Patriots | Clinton Ma Tea Party()

  • cc0623

    We are in big trouble Americans!

    • Jrr2424

      why are we in trouble. Should we NOT stop cross-border shipments ofconventional weapons — from small arms and missile launchers to tanks,
      warships and attack helicopters — that could enable war crimes, terrorism or human rights violations??

      What am i missing here?

      • lakeside227

        You are missing the part of the treaty which requires all nation states to compile a national registry of end users of guns and ammo AND submit that registry to the UN. That is a VIOLATION, an infringement, on our Right to keep and bear arms.

        • Jrr2424

          Are you aware of who the end users are? And how is this a violation of our right to bear arms? The attempt to curtail illicit weapons trade between countries is a violation on the right to bear arms? This has to do with weapons brokers (nation states usually) and those receiving weapons (end users, also nation states). IF you are not a gun broker selling to organizations in other countries, this does not apply to you. Again, what am I missing here?

          • Jrr2424

            I should stop, but this is rather comical…this treaty would require the rest of the world (or the signatories) to adopt the system we ALREADY have. At least we can say we witnessed something in our lifetime that has rarely happened, siding with North Korea, Iran and Syria on an issue (only 3 no votes). We should be proud.

          • lakeside227

            Proud that our government is ceding the sovereignty of the People to a foreign organization? I think not!

          • lakeside227

            Have you read the treaty? I have. I paid particular attention to the part that requires the US to compile a registration of end users of guns and ammo. End users are the individuals who end up with the guns and ammo – gun owners.

            “The attempt to curtail illicit weapons trade between countries is a violation on the right to bear arms?”

            Is that what I said in my comment? No, I said the registry that we are required to submit to the UN is an infringement on our Right. It’s an infringement because the government has NO AUTHORITY to create a registry of gun owners.

          • Jrr2424

            First, the registration requirement is optional and second are you buying your weapons from other countries or brokers from other countries? buying some hunting ammo from Syria?

          • lakeside227

            No, it is not optional – they ‘encourage’ nation states to include this information. Bet that obama reads ‘encourage’ as ‘SHALL.’

            This includes imports of ammo, parts and components. It includes transfers and brokering. This treaty includes everything connected to small arms. You have NO idea how the government will use this treaty to control the ownership of firearms and ammo. Others know what the government will do with this.

          • skspls

            How about shotguns from Spain and the UK?

          • soonanTX

            Do you honestly think it will end there? Obama and crew are desperate to take gun rights away. They have declared war on the gun owners of this nation. What do you think will be the end result of gun registry? Give that some good long thought before you answer. As someone else asked, do you really trust government. Do you really trust this administration?

      • skspls

        Lots of commonly used hunting and recreational firearms are foreign made.

  • Pingback: John Kerry Sold Us Out – Again | Grumpy Opinions()

  • sandlappers_retreat


  • lakeside227

    The Constitution is SUPREME LAW – everything MUST be in compliance with the Constitution or it is NULL, VOID, INVALID, ILLEGAL, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    The Supremacy Clause states:

    “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

    Regarding treaties, please note is says: ‘…under the authority of the United States…’

    The federal government does NOT have Constitutionally enumerated power to regulate guns in ANY WAY. Since the Constitution does NOT delegate that power to the federal government, AND specifically FORBIDS them from infringing on our Right to keep and bear arms, they do NOT have the authority to ratify a treaty regarding guns.

    • Jrr2424

      do you release guns have been regulated for a long time? Automatic weapons ban, the fact you can’t buy missiles, tanks, plastic guns, etc?

      • lakeside227

        Reading comprehension is a good skill to have.

        Did I say our government does NOT regulate guns? No, I said the Constitution doesn’t delegate ANY authority to them to regulate guns AND specifically FORBIDS them from infringing on our Right to keep and bear arms.

        BTW, missiles and tanks are NOT the personal arms of a soldier, which is to what the 2nd Amendment refers.

        • Jrr2424

          Have you heard of the Commerce Clause? No one is taking away your guns, Obama isn’t coming in a black helicopter to implant GPS chips in your blood.

          • lakeside227

            Do you know what ‘commerce’ is? Do you know what ‘regulating interstate commerce’ authorizes the government to do?

            It authorizes them to ensure free, and unencumbered by state taxes or tariffs, buying and selling between states. Commerce is the ACT of buying and selling. Commerce does NOT include the actual goods and services – the merchandise – that is being bought and sold or traveling through a state. The ONLY thing the federal government is authorized to do with the commerce clause is to ensure no state treats imported goods and services DIFFERENTLY than goods that state produces.

          • hardhat40

            I agree – every mention of the term “commerce” in the Federalist Papers refers to commerce as something separate from agriculture and manufacture….

          • lakeside227

            Did I SAY obama was a comin to get the guns OR implant GPS chips?

            Reading comprehension…reading comprehension…

          • lakeside227

            P.S. I don’t own any firearms.

          • hardhat40

            Yeah – the leftists have tried to regulate firearm possession using the “commerce clause” once in recent history – US v LOPEZ. Congress tried to ban firearms possession within 500 ft of a school zone – it was found to NOT be a valid exercise of the commerce clause. WICKARD V FILBURN is the case that lefties like to cite to justify all manner of Congressional authority, but its a bad case because it lacks any LIMITING PRINCIPLE – the commerce clause CANNOT be construed to extend limitless power to Congress. That would make the entire Constitution pointless.

  • hardhat40

    While I agree with the author’s legal opinion, it is an open question about treaties. There is a school of thought on this that treaties rule supreme – and cite the 1920 case of Missouri V Holland as trumping the 10th Amendment. Given the current composition of the court, these leftists can easily find justification to trump the 2nd Amendment, and maybe drag Kennedy or Roberts with them.

    • lakeside227

      Missouri v Holland did not establish treaties as above the Constitution. Treaties don’t trump ANY part of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause stipulates that treaties made ‘under the authority of the U.S.’ are supreme over state laws that may conflict with the treaty. Under the authority of the U.S. means pertaining to the feds ENUMERATED powers in the Constitution. Just like ONLY federal laws that are executing the fed’s enumerated powers are supreme over state laws.

      In Missouri v Holland “Congress had passed laws regulating the hunting of migratory waterfowl…”

      Those laws were declared unconstitutional on the basis that the Constitution granted the federal government NO authority to regulated migratory bird hunting.

      Congress then went around that ruling by authorizing the State Dept. to negotiate a treaty with the U.K. That treaty was ratified by Congress. Missouri then sued saying that if Congress had no authority to regulate hunting of migratory waterfowl on its OWN, a treaty doing the same thing was also unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled it WAS Constitutional because “[t]he treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution.” Meaning that the Constitution doesn’t say the feds COULDN’T ratify a treaty for regulating migratory waterfowl, ergo, they can.

      Of course this is a COMPLETE PERVERSION of the Constitution because the feds powers are ENUMERATED. If a power isn’t granted to the feds by the Constitution, that power belongs to the states.

      SCOTUS, in effect, said the feds can do anything that isn’t specifically prohibited by the Constitution – a ruling that completely ignores the 10th Amendment. This case is just ONE instance of SCOTUS and Congress usurping state powers.

      • hardhat40

        I agree 100% – and would argue that in the upcoming Bond V US case. To me it seems counter intuitive that there was ever ANY intent that the Senates power to ratify treaties included a power to grant itself powers it does not otherwise Constitutionally have. The Holland case is a particularly BAD ruling; precisely why I cite it. Its as bad , or worse, than Wickard V Filburn.

        Perfect evidence of this is found in the majority opinion: “It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.” That’s this whole “living breathing” nonsense. It is absurd to believe that Madison “hoped” that the Federal government would someday “grow” powers it otherwise did not have. In that same spirit, it is equally absurd to believe that the Constitution grants the SCOTUS the power to be the final arbiters of what is good or bad law – they ARE restricted to consider “what was written 100 yrs ago.”

        The majority opinion says further: “But for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with.” That is a subjective opinion that qualified biologists should argue – NOT Court justices. Whomever wrote this opinion was probably a Wilson appointee – it sounds exactly like the contempt for the constitution that he had.
        A sizable portion of the SCOTUS shares this contempt. Surely you agree that they will follow this same “logic” – ESPECIALLY to contravene the 2nd Amendment. That is why I cited the terrible precedent set by Holland. We need treat ANY treaty with great suspicion, just in case they try to employ this same “logic” to other rights.

        • lakeside227

          Ahhhh, I believe I misunderstood your point in citing Missouri v Holland.

          I had a very long discussion with another gentleman regarding this very topic. He was of the opinion that the treaty making power of the executive branch extends to ANY treaty the pres deems pertinent or beneficial to the Country.

          Despite my brilliant ( ;) ) arguments, using the text of the Constitution and the explanations of the Framers, he was unpersuaded.

          However, his refusal to believe that the Constitution ONLY authorizes our federal government to enter into treaties pertaining to their Constitutionally enumerated powers, doesn’t make his opinion correct.

          By specifying that all treaties must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, that brings treaties under the authority of the Senate. The Senate may ONLY act on its enumerated powers in Article I Section 8. The Supremacy Clause emphasizes this restriction by using the phrase ‘under the authority of the U.S.’ The legislative authority of the U.S. is listed in Article I Section 8. The Constitution FURTHER restricts Congress in the 10th Amendment, by saying the fed has ONLY the powers enumerated in the CONSTITUTION. Those powers are found in Article I Section 8.

          (my comment is so detailed for the benefit of others who are reading this, I believe you already understand these points)

          To be continued…. :)

          • hardhat40

            Yeah, my post was just to warn that such bad case law does exist out there, and to take this seriously. But I’m glad you responded anyhow. Your understanding of the Constitution seems at least as good as mine. I am not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar – I’m not even a college grad. But as I said earlier, the enumeration of powers and the Bill of Rights are there precisely to PREVENT the “evolution” of a Federal Leviathan – making the majority’s opinion in Holland that the framers “hoped they created an organism” absolutely ridiculous on its face.
            Of the need to limit and restrict the power of the federal government, THERE WAS NO DISAGREEMENT between Federalists (Madison, Hamilton) and Anti Federalists (Monroe, Mason). The only disagreement was that Federalists didn’t see a need for the Bill of Rights – nothing enumerated in the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish a religion, or confiscate firearms. Anti Federalists were suspicious of phrases like “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” – and rightfully so. But on neither side was it expressed or intended that the Congress would have these sweeping powers.
            This is relevant because of this treaty (which will NOT be ratified), and the upcoming Bond V US dealing with a similar question: Can the Senate “ratify” itself expanded powers by treaty? Can the Senate enter into a treaty that, for example, authorizes them to establish a religion? I don’t think so, and the phrase you cite, “under the authority of the US”, indicates that.
            Your opinion, I believe, is the correct one. Too bad it isn’t up to us – this would be a no brainer. But guys like you encountered, and at least 4 SCOTUS Justices, disagree with us. As you have, I articulated my reasoning for the benefit of others, with no intent to “enlighten” you. Still, its good to have these discussions because I, for one, have plenty to learn on the subject! I look forward to other exchanges with you!

  • soonanTX

    And just how many Republicans voted to install this traitorous man? Far too much has been ignored concerning this administration that is counter to our constitutional rights and sovereignty.