Tuesday, April 27, 2010

This is not a Chuck Norris joke. . . but it could be. No, actually, on second thought, it is.


You've all heard Chuck Norris jokes, right?


Leading hand sanitizers claim they can kill 99.9 percent of germs. Chuck Norris can kill 100 percent of whatever he wants.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.

Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.

Chuck Norris was originally cast as the main character in 24, but was replaced by the producers when he managed to kill every terrorist and save the day in 12 minutes and 37 seconds.

Chuck Norris can speak braille.

Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.

Chuck Norris owns the greatest Poker Face of all-time. It helped him win the 1983 World Series of Poker despite him holding just a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game Uno.

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

Once a cobra bit Chuck Norris' leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died.

Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting implies the possibility of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.

Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

Ghosts are actually caused by Chuck Norris killing people faster than Death can process them.

Chuck Norris can strangle you with a cordless phone.

Chuck Norris can create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it. And then he lifts it anyways, just to show you who Chuck Norris is.

If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.

So, somebody sent me this breathless Chuck Norris advertisement for the NRA. In it, Norris hyper-ventilates:

Right now, Washington is scheming and scamming to erode and then erase the Second Amendment from our Constitution. And it will accomplish it through the signing of international treaties on gun control, bypassing the normal legislative process in Congress, tightening regulations upon firearm and ammunition manufacturers, using the anti-gun financing of tycoons and ultimately confiscating all firearms under the guise of terrorism patrol and enforcement. Without public debate and cloaked in secrecy, gun control covertly will come upon us like a thief in the night. One day, we will wake up to discover that the U.S. has signed a global treaty that will prohibit any transfer of firearm ownership, force reductions in the number of firearms privately owned and eventually eradicate the planet of guns for law-abiding citizens. Of course, the criminals still will have their guns illegally. And on that day, if you do not comply with that global treaty, you will be fined and face imprisonment. This is not a fictitious story or false warning. As sure as government health care has been shoved down our throats, so will the barrels of our guns. And left with little defense, we will go as lambs to the slaughter.

Lions! And tigers! And bears! Oh, my!

Of course the solution to this "lambs to the slaughter" is the Judas-goat NRA, apparently.

Look, guys and gals, I PRAY that the domestic enemies of the Constitution and the Founders' Republic try this. I long for the day when they call on foreign troops as "peacekeepers" to our soil. I dream of the day that all these supposed FEMA camps go into operation.


Chuck Norris?

Sheesh, what a wimp.



dennis308 said...

Somebody forgot that Treaties Have to be ratified by Congress.
And I hope they remember what happened the last time,they can´t be that Stupid their still breathing.


Dakota said...

Absolutely right .... bring that crap on!!! I can think of no other thing that would galvanize the American gun owner. We're not just talking about just 3%ers now. Maybe OK BOD will even figure that out ....maybe.

W W Woodward said...

The people who seem to be scared to death that Obama will sign an international gun control treaty and that it will be accepted by the Senate are basing their entire fear upon the wording of Article VI paragraph 2 of the Constitution. I’m not convinced that any treaty can carry with it the effect of automatically nullifying any of our rights as free Americans without an amendment to the Constitution as the wording of the 2nd Amendment specifically states, “… shall not be infringed.”

Bearing in mind that all the amendments to our Constitution were intended to and understood to amend (change) any portion of the Constitution that went before them. Otherwise, why bother with an amendment in the first place? All 27 of the Constitutional Amendments are as much a part of the Constitution as is the first word of the first article. See Article V.

It would follow that any portion of the original Constitution became null and void when an amendment intended to change that portion was ratified. (ie. Amendment XVII voided Article I, Sec 3, paragraph 1, the method of electing senators)

I would propose therefore that the Second Amendment, having been ratified subsequent to the ratification of the original body of the Constitution, overrides any portion of Article VI that might be in contradiction; which would preempt any treaty that might conflict with any right that is protected by any of the 27 amendments.


Anonymous said...

I wouldn't put anything past politicians now a days.

Anonymous said...

WW Woodward has it almost right. A treaty like a federal law is "the supreme law of the land". That does not mean that either supercede the Constitution. A treaty like a federal law that violates the Constitution would be void, that is because the congress did not have the authority to approve it and the president did not have the authority to sign it. You don't have to get into when each was passed though that does make a strong additional argument.

Oldfart said...

Mr. Woodward, sir.
The Constitution also says something about the President being a "Natural Born Citizen" too. That doesn't seem to be working out very well these days. It also spells out - specifically - what the Federal government can do. By twisting a few concepts into court decisions we now have the feds involved in everything from Agriculture to Zoology.

While the Constitution does mention Senate ratification of treaties in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, it merely says that two thirds of the senators present must concur. A really slimy President and Senate leader could call a meeting of the senate when only a few hand-picked members could attend and ratify almost anything the aforementioned slimy President had signed.

Of course that isn't likely to happen with our present high-minded group in power... is it?

Dedicated_Dad said...

As to Congress, it only requires "...a 2/3 majority of the members PRESENT...


Anonymous said...

There are similar jokes about Jack Bauer. One of my favorites:

If Jack Bauer was gay he would be called Chuck Norris.

zach said...

I feel you, but Chuck is probably right. Sure people like their guns, and I know there will be many thousands of guns buried if the worst happens. But most people just want to watch the ball game and have an easy, predictable life. People will take their shoes and belts off and go through naked body scanners to get on planes. Some complain. But complaining is not action. In most of Amerika, the government tells people they can't drink unboiled milk. Any society that dictates how people take their milk is done. Kaput. Finished.

MamaLiberty said...

A treaty like a federal law that violates the Constitution would be void, that is because the congress did not have the authority to approve it and the president did not have the authority to sign it.[/quote]

And how has any of this stopped the president, congress and supreme court from violating that same constitution over and over and over again in the last 230 years?

They don't CARE anymore, and they will do exactly whatever we allow them to do, constitution be damned.

But, in fact, the constitution was never intended to safeguard the life and liberty of the people of this country.

From Lysander Spooner, No Treason:
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.


CarlS said...

Kudos to WW Woodword. Also consider thius:

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies pushed upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution". The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside". HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution. Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last, a treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. "This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’ "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result... "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. pgs 500-519). "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that, "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent." The Reid Court continues with its Opinion: "This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument." The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!!

Anonymous said...

The day such a treaty were signed would be an interesting day indeed. In a sense, it would be the another Declaration of Independence, as it would nullify the authority of the federal government. Among other things, it would be the day I stopped paying taxes or paying any attention to regulations. It would be Liberty Day.

Tom Wolff said...

I really like ol'Chuck, but he stepped in it big time right there.

Unknown said...

Mr. M. V.

talk talk talk

There is no political solution.

Like everyone; I am waiting for that illusive rubicon. That will tip the scales and bring on the struggle! CONSTITUTION or socialism.



DRP said...

Mike you are doing a great job,but so is CN,Im not a big fan of the NRA just my 2 cents

Anonymous said...

Stop pickin' on lil' Chuck! He at least is doing something to fight these globalist thugs. Chuck may be a bit over zealous in his quest(maybe, maybe not), but I'd much rather have him on my side than the typical lazy assed couch sittin' patriot in name only POS.

And Mike, remember, these are the same thugs that would just as soon send a jack boot to stomp on your face. Why pick on Chuck?

...just wonderin' why us threepers are pickin' on our own kin?


Concerned American said...

People who depend on Constitutional defenses assume that the other side will respect that defense.

Ask Wayne Fincher how that works out.

W W Woodward said...

Old Fart,

You are correct in your statement that it would be relatively simple for the president to arrange for a select few senators to gather for a late night vote of the “members present” to adopt a treaty that would be intended to strip We The People of any or all of our rights inherent to American citizens.

That is why I included in my opinion the fact that a number of the 27 amendments were written to change the Constitution in order to protect rights the sorry SoBs would scheme to take from us. Those amendments overrule anything to the contrary that was ratified prior to their ratification. The only way any of the amendments that protect the rights of American citizens can be over ruled is to further amend the Constitution (ie. Amendment XVIII ratified 16 Jan 1919 repealed by Constitutional Amendment XXI ratified 5 Dec 1933). And, that action thankfully entails a considerably more complicated process that just meeting after the lights go out.


Dutchman6 said...

I've never had much for Norris. Walker, Texas Ranger used militias as the bad guys about every other episode in the 90s. Yeah, I know, he didn't write the scripts. So what? It was like they were being written by Morris Dees. And my point about him being locked at the hip with NRA still stands.