Welcome to General Chat - GAW Community Area

Happens to me all the time. To one fake anon out there I am a commie..

Downvotes just mean you are over the target fren

Let me put it into Codex and see what I can get it to do.

(Feel free to ping me in a week or so if you dont hear about this. I have a few things lined up and this might fall through the cracks.)

Repost with circles and red lines and a drop that has no relation to it at all and you will have ten thousand updoots

missed it, an important post!

So Treaties in Force, do they supercede the Constitution?

UN Participation Act of 1949, is all legislation meant to comply with the UN? The Security Council replaced the League of Nations as the law-making organ of the UN, its decisions are binding, UN General Assembly resolutions are expressions of will, but not legally binding.

Under the UN there are regional organizations with Declarations of Human Rights, so USA is part of the Organization of American States (OAS) and it has a court of human rights. The human rights document for the Americas is actually pro-life.

Here’s the OAS charter https://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-41_charter_OAS.asp & “American Convention on Human Rights” https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.pdf

Reid v. Covert treaties cannot supersede the Constitution, and when applied treaties cannot abrogate individual rights or separation of powers of government.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/

Behold A Pale Horse has good discussions on how internationalists intended for the UN to allow Congress to make laws which without the UN such new laws could not be passed. And the Cooley and Norton scholars are brought upon the topic.

https://archive.org/details/behold-a-pale-horse-william-cooper_202302/mode/2up?q=treaties

I like the opinion of Reid v. Covert

Asia does not have a comprehensive organization or system. During the Cold War, the Communist Bloc nations had their International Covenant on Civil &Political Rights & western Bloc nations had for their human rights framework the Intl. Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

And we know how Obummer & sHillary treated Qaddafi as he helped lead the African Union.

excellent thinking! I was also wondering if Anons see this as a protective move, with House Oversight committee subpoenas in place, and Bill Barr to HRC being subpoenaed, then Natl Guard provides some protection from Black Hats attempting anything destructive and disruptive

I think it may be the Trump Card.

Thanks for continuing these fren. God bless. Praying for you. Please let me know if there is ever anything specific I can pray for. Much love

Alright, let’s roll up our sleeves and walk through Matthew 19:13–14.

Exegesis

1. "Then were there brought unto him little children…" In the flow of Matthew’s Gospel, this comes right after Jesus’ teaching on marriage. The crowd is still buzzing from His high view of covenant faithfulness, and now some parents decide to bring their covenant children to Christ for a blessing. This isn’t random—it’s very much in line with Old Testament patterns, where patriarchs blessed children as an act of covenant faith.

2. "…that he should put his hands on them, and pray" This is not “spiritual patty-cake.” In Scripture, the laying on of hands is a formal, covenantal act—setting apart, blessing, and invoking God’s favor. The parents weren’t just looking for a cute photo op. They wanted divine favor on their children.

3. "…and the disciples rebuked them" The disciples here are channeling the inner church usher who thinks Jesus is too busy for nursery duty. They assume the Kingdom is for the movers and shakers, not for the juice-box crowd. In other words, they don’t understand the nature of the Kingdom they’ve been following.

4. "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me…" “Suffer” here means “permit.” Jesus is telling them to stop being spiritual bouncers. He doesn’t see children as distractions to ministry—He sees them as central to it.

5. "…for of such is the kingdom of heaven" This is not sentimental Hallmark fluff about childlike innocence. Jesus is making a covenantal point: the Kingdom actually belongs to those like this—weak, dependent, entirely reliant on grace. These little ones are not outsiders waiting to “grow into” the Kingdom; they are insiders already claimed by the King.

Picture this scene: parents are hauling their toddlers toward Jesus, probably with one wiping a runny nose on mom’s shoulder and another trying to eat a rock. The disciples step in like secret service agents—“Sorry folks, the Rabbi’s busy with important Kingdom work.”

And Jesus says, “Actually, you’ve got it backward. This is the important Kingdom work.”

Here’s the point: the Kingdom of God is not a gated community for the spiritually accomplished. It’s a nursery for the helpless, the needy, and the wholly dependent. And if you think you’re too important to stoop down and deal with sippy-cup people—whether literal kids or the spiritually immature—you’ve misunderstood the Kingdom entirely.

The disciples saw a distraction. Jesus saw heirs. The disciples saw the future. Jesus saw the present.

And here’s the kicker: when Jesus says, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” He’s telling grown-ups, “If you don’t come like this—dependent, trusting, unable to earn your keep—you don’t come at all.” That’s not an optional sermon illustration. That’s the passport control for the Kingdom.

So, the next time you see a child toddling into church with mismatched socks, remember—God says, “This one belongs here.” And if the King says they belong, our job is not to block the door but to fling it wide open.