video: Marxism in America by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G.Boykin -- The New Rulers of the World?

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6 ]

Subject: video: Marxism in America by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G.Boykin

Author:
food for thought

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:17:58 07/25/11 Mon

Marxism in America by Lt. Gen.(Ret.) W. G. Boykin

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

P.S. While I don't agree with "everything" he says in the video, I still found it interesting and informative.

P.S.S. If you are interested in why I disagree with the video, I will give you an example. In the video, he suggests that UN treaties override the Constitution. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. I wish people would STOP SPREADING THAT LIE. You see, "and all treaties made, or which shall be made,'UNDER' the authority (aka laws) of the United States." shows the people that treaties are "UNDER" THE LAWS OF THE United States government, NOT "OVER" THEM. Don't believe me? Well, let's look at a definition of Treaty in Black's Law Dictionary. Here is the definition below:

"A treaty is NOT ONLY A 'LAW', BUT ALSO A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO NATIONS AND MUST, IF POSSIBLE, BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO GIVE FULL FORCE AND EFFECT TO ALL ITS PARTS. United States v. Reid, C.C.A.Or., 73 F. 2d 153, 155."

Now, since "treaties" are is BY DEFINITION A "law" passed by the U.S. Congress, THAT ALSO MEANS IT HAS TO BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF ("This Constitution") from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. THEREFORE, THE CONSTITUTION demands that Treaties be Constitutional. So if a treaty violates the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment, it is null and void just as the Supreme Court decision Marbury vs. Madison states/explains about all "acts of Congress" THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ARE.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]