28 May 2012: Slipping silently under the radar is an insidious plan by Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and legislative globalists is a plan to disarm American citizens. The initial reaction of most reasonable people in America would be to cry out “impossible!” and cite our right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That was my reaction as well, until I began a lengthy and complex investigation into the realm of the U.N., current U.S. leadership, and related non-governmental agencies (NGOs). I was unprepared for what I discovered. The trail leading to ultimate global gun control that includes the U.S. is a long, twisted and arduous route that is not easily followed, but I’ll attempt to summarize my findings in a succinct and logical format.
Treaties in general
There is much discussion that the U.S. will never enter into any international treaty ceding U.S. sovereignty as it would take at least two-thirds of the Senate (present) to ratify. Once ratified, a treaty would also be as binding as a Constitutional Amendment, something Americans would never accept. Before you argue that U.S. citizens would never stand for an agreement that is essentially an “end around” the U.S. Constitution and as binding as a Constitutional Amendment, just consider recent Executive Orders, the passage of the health care bill, the establishment of a “super congress,” and other things thought to be virtually impossible in present-day America. Other legal arguments concerning international treaties exist but are beyond the intended scope of this article.
The push to disarm U.S. citizens
To put things into perspective, first consider the statement made by Barack Hussein Obama to Sarah Brady during a meeting on 30 March 2011 concerning gun control: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” That statement alone should sufficiently establish this administration’s intent on gun control.
Additionally, it is becoming clear that Operation Fast & Furious,” a direct product of Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton, under the leadership of the Obama administration was intended as an indirect assault on the second amendment.
Consider that Holder, who defied subpoenas and offered spotty testimony about his knowledge and involvement in the Fast and Furious operation, used his testimony before a House committee to call for the need for stronger gun control laws because of the “gun walking.”
There is not enough space to detail all of the activities conducted under Holder to sufficiently make this case irrefutable, although the information exists for your review.
Also consider the Obama and Holder involvement into the Trayvon Martin shooting case. Their statements should be ringing alarm bells across the U.S. This is a case that we will contribute to chaos coming to the streets of America. The result, or the lesser result of such chaos, will be the call for even stronger gun laws by this administration.
The anti-gun ownership positions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, just to name three U.S. leaders, should be sufficient to make the case that gun control is on top of their ultimate agenda of ceding U.S sovereignty to global governance. No black helicopters or ridiculous conspiracy theories required.
Small Arms Treaty of 2012 – Arms Trade Treaty Resolution
The Small Arms Treaty is one of a number of U.N. treaties under consideration by our current leadership, which includes both sides of the now fictitious political divide. The Small Arms Treaty originated in 2003 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates and was initially addressed in the UN in December 2006. The UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 titled “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty” that worked to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”
One has to look no farther than the major media, such as the October 23, 2011 edition of the Los Angeles Times to find that anyone who believes that the United Nations will have any influence over U.S. gun possession is on the “lunatic fringe” of society. Quoting from that article “only a narrow fringe purports that Americans could see their guns taken away by the U.N., which has no authority over constitutional rights.” In addition to the corporate media, one can find similar rebukes at websites such as the husband and wife self-appointed arbiters of the truth snopes.com, Fact Check, and other sites rooted in political agenda.
At present, the U.S. has joined with 152 other nations supporting the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution. A U.N. conference on the treaty will be held from 2-27 July 2012. We must not allow the U.S. leadership to agree to this treaty.
While many are absorbed and locked on to the Small Arms Treaty of 2012, other initiatives exist that present equally large threats to the citizens of our Republic.
The U.N. CASA Project and ISACS
The United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA), is a project of the U.N. and operates outside of any UN treaties. It receives funding from entities such as UNICEF, the Canadian and Australian governments, and other entities and individuals. Supporters include Hillary Clinton, George Soros and even NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who assert that the project is not about banning guns, but making them “safer.” It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Gun safety is the current pretext being used for gun control, and ISACS the instrument being used by the U.N. as the mechanism to subvert our constitutional rights to ultimately outlaw the possession of firearms of all types by American citizens.
It’s been over two centuries since we’ve freed ourselves from British rule, yet a British organization known as the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is waging war against American gun owners. from 2002 until 2010, IANSA was under the directorship of Australian native Rebecca Peters, and was key in Australia’s laws essentially outlawing private gun ownership. Peters and the IANSA have a close relationship with billionaire globalist George Soros, and resigned her position at IANSA to avoid undermining the U.N. Small Arms Treaty process. Because of her radical and outspoken views, she became a toxic asset to the surreptitious agenda of the U.N.
The ultimate agenda of the globalists is, of course, global governance. To put it differently, a one world order. Again, most thinking people in the U.S. will not accept such a scenario, unless, of course, it appears to the only answer to personal survival. Even then, thankfully, there will be holdouts, but a good deal of damage to our nation will already have been accomplished.
The primary agenda of Obama, Hillary and his stable of czars is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and submit to global governance. To do so, Americans must be disarmed. If gun control, confiscation and ultimately outlawing the possession of guns in America cannot be done within the confines of our current Constitutional process, they are attempting to do so through international treaties and initiatives camouflaged as beneficial programs.
Much like the health control bill, measures buried deep within these voluminous treaties represent an assault on our personal defenses. The proponents of these measures just hope you don’t read everything that’s in them.
America is closer than ever in adopting the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS III), something that most Americans thought would never happen. Can submission of our gun ownership rights be far behind? Disarmament of American gun owners is the key for our complete submission to global governance. We must not allow it to happen.