Thread: U.N. Disarmament of U.S.

Monday, October 14, 2013

U.N. Disarmament of America?


http://patdollard.com/2013/09/gun-gr...arm-americans/

Who was it in my life that always told me you can never simply trust the government? “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to decieve.”
It would appear that Secretary of State John Kerry has unilaterally without full consent of either body of representatives, and by circumventing We the People’s Constitutional Rights. This is not only something every single American need to be alarmed about, but where is the outrage? In a post I published yesterday, I included a document published by the United Nations. The document will be reposted in this particular post.

The first issue with the United Nations is the notion that this U.N. has been persistent in the advancement of United States of America participating in U.N. Agenda 21. As part of the advancement of U.N. agenda 21 there are plans of complete disarmament of United States citizens and all citzens of foreign nations.

At any point in history, when an entire populace has been completely disarmed, those who suffer are the disarmed. There is never a greater threat to an individuals liberty, than when their own government is working tirelessly against them in the face of nearly every issue that immediately impacts you. In the year 2011 and 2012 President Obama signed the N.D.A.A.. I will quickly explain the N.D.A.A. gives authority to any person or agency of the governments approval to not only detain indefinitely any American citizen, but citizens can be arrested without charge, and with no communications to the outside.

This is unprecedented in the History of the United States of America, and it is outright treason. The outrage comes when then candidate Obama in 2007 ” when I am President I will have my team of judicial lawyers review all Executive Orders and other laws passed by a previous administration, and repeal any law that is Unconstitutional”. These were then candidate Barack Obama’s exact words. Now the fact of the matter is, Barack Obama has passed more controversial laws to the Constitution, and Executive Orders that are not in compliance with the rights bestowed upon man at the time of the Constitution’s authoring. Barack Obama has circumvented the confinements of the Constitution, unilaterally declared war on the American people, and has no intent on working for the people that elected him.

I want to note that this same Small Arms trade Treaty was rejected last year in 2012 in the U.S. Senate. The process of bringing that treaty up for a vote would require Secretary Kerry to actually bring that treaty to a vote. So Secretary Kerry acted unilaterally on behalf of him self, and the President, and of course the United Nations. Where are the American People in this process? The United States Constitution was not written for the Government to reign control, but was intended to restrain the Federal Government. The idea that the Secretary of State John Kerry unilaterally signed a treaty with a foreign entity and circumvented both bodies of Congress by doing so, but that this treaty was also never ratified by two thirds of the states, and or respectively the people of those states.

Coincidentally, when Adolf Hitler was the Fuhrer of Germany, he was such the charismatic leader of the German peopleas well. Although Adolf Hitler presented him self to the populace in Germany as the leader who had compassion for his people, it did not influence his conscious to act with compassion. Quite the opposite actually.

The reality that Adolf Hitler effectively disarmed the population of Germany and of course those that truly suffered throughout the reign of Adolf Hitler the Jewish people, should never be looked at with the thought something like that could never happen in the United States, it might be time to arouse yourself from that slumber your trapped in. When Adolf Hitler made it illegal for one to defend themselves in the name of the children, children were not exempt from Hitler and the carnage that took place in Germany.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly specifies the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It states as follows

” A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it claim that the right to bear arms is so as the people can hunt. Also if the argument to bear arms was exclusive to the military, the Constitution would specify such. With this argument I direct you to the Federalist Papers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ulated+militia

The minute possibility that the founders of our country as it were a Free Republic do not argue that a “well regulated militia” is the same definition of our nation’s armed forces. Further, the founders fully specify that the militia is comprised of the PEOPLE, as do they specifically state that militia having the same authority to behold arms that are equally as sufficient as that of the United States Military. The arguments further implicate that their profound reasoning for bestowing the right to keep and bear arms, is to sustain the Freedoms of our Republic.

Let us never forget our founding fathers defeated their own tyrannical government. Also, their sentiments of bestowing these rights upon us, are to be used as a last resort effort to reclaim our nation from a tyrannical government. The Freedoms passed down to the United States People for generations upon generations were not given to the people as a priveledge, but are ” certain and inalienable.” This means these rights are guaranteed under God almighty. As these certain rights are guaranteed, they CAN NOT be taken away! No matter how one may choose to argue the twenty three Executive Orders signed by President Barack Obama, it is more than necessary to understand your inalienable rights, as well as to know them. There is no arguement in the Constitution nor will an arguement appear in the Federalist Papers that gives the President or any other member of Congress and or the Senate, and Secretary Kerry is not an elected official, irrelevant of his past held office of the U.S.Senate.

In all actuality, Secretary Kerry should be held to higher accountability after having served on the U.S. Senate. Senator Kerry, Barack Obama, and all members of our government who having been complicit in the usurpation of We The People’s Constitutional Bill of Rights must be held to accountability to the utmost highest decree of the laws they are restrained within our Constitution. In which, fully indicate We The People of these United States have the maximum and exclusive authority to imprison impeach and remove public servants. We The People must invoke our Tenth Amendment to declare this treaty, and all other Unconstitutional laws null and void! Tenth Amendment states

“The powers not delegated to the United States Government, nor prohibited to it thereof, are reserved to the States, or respectively”.

THE PEOPLE! Without the Second Amendment, We The People would not have the maximum authority to make null and void any laws declared Unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is what contributes to our diversity of opinion. It allows one to defend themselves in the face of danger.The Second Amendment is how one has the right of choice in any situation. Not to imply that it ought to be used in every situation, but it levels the playing field when you absolutely needed it.

In the event that a criminal has illegally entered your home, if they have entered your home illegally they definitely are not paying attention to what the law specifies. If they are not in compliance with the law and the law states you cannot keep firearms, what are you going to do when that person still posesses a firearm? Police officers take the same amount of time in a life or death situation to make the difference of death rather than life. Are you as an individual comfortable, with the idea that your right to defend yourself against foreign invasions at home, or a rogue new domestic military could take away your ABILITY TO DEFEND YOURSELF, when it clearly states that is certain and inalienable under GOD? Just a little bit of food for thought.

The above indication can be referenced at the top of this post by clicking the link at the top. I just wanted to disclose this statement with everyone who chooses to read my post, but the document released by the United Nations gives the confirmation that this foreign army or rogue domestic military have a stated intention of disarmament of the American citizens. More specifically, We The People. The document claims that Americans are a static problem Iin the implementation of Agenda 21. I will go into that on a different post. The document released also gives an estimated 500, 000 million firearms still remain in the posession of its private citizens. It implies to the United States government that it needs to be more proactive in the disarmament of American citizens. Of course it requests the government confiscate guns either voluntary or whenever possible. It also indicates a glimmer of hope for We The People, it states that there is no doubt Americans will not just surrender their arms. I hope noone reading this has already surrendered. As the saying goes

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...rticalresponse

Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:46 50 Senators Warn Obama: We Will Not Ratify UN Arms Treaty

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

• font size
• Print
• E-mail
  

Fifty senators are standing together to protect the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
In a letter addressed to President Barack Obama, the senators enumerated six reasons the president should refuse to present the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to the Senate for ratification. Among the objections raised by the senatorial signatories is the ambiguity of the treaty, as well as the grant to “foreign sources of authority” the power to “impose judgment or control on the U.S.”
For many months now, Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) has been the driving force behind the legislature’s opposition to the Arms Trade Treaty. In a statement accompanying the letter, Moran attacked the president’s plan to subvert the bipartisan will of the Congress.
"The Administration’s recent signing of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a direct dismissal of the bipartisan Senate majority that rejects this treaty," Sen. Moran said.
"Throughout this process," he continued, "it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own ‘red line’ negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty’s dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text. Today I join my colleagues in upholding the fundamental individual rights of Americans by reiterating our rejection of the ATT. The Senate will overwhelmingly oppose ratification, and will not be bound by the treaty."
Speaking at a meeting with gun-rights groups in Texas, one of the other signers of the letter opposing the ATT set forth the reasons he joined Moran and 48 more of his colleagues in contacting President Obama.
“What we learned today is that a number of manufacturers of very popular shotguns and other firearms would simply refuse to sell their product in the United States and that would deny consumers in Texas and this country the opportunity to buy those and use them for self-defense or for sporting purposes,” said Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), as reported by local media.
Cornyn warned of the potential threat to core principles of liberty posed by the UN’s gun grab: “A treaty is an international obligation that trumps the domestic laws of a country. So that’s the real threat here, is obviously the Constitution is the fundamental law of America and of our land, but if for some reason this treaty should be signed and then ratified by 67 senators, then it trumps American law.”
In this, however, Senator Cornyn was wrong.
Regardless of presidential fervor for the disarmament of law-abiding Americans or the number of votes he and his backers can buy in the Senate, no treaty that violates the Constitution could ever become the law of the land.
When it comes to treaties — or any act passed by Congress for that matter — the analysis must begin by looking within the four corners of the Constitution.
It only makes sense that the federal government cannot enter into a treaty that would contravene the Constitution. If I tell my teenage son that he can drive my car to the movies, does that give him permission to drive it into a lake?
To put a finer point on it, Article VI of the Constitution says:
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
That means that in order to have any lawful effect, the object of any treaty signed by the president and ratified by the Senate must lie within their constitutional authority ("the authority of the United States”).
In the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that many of its key provisions directly violate the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
If the Congress and president were to disregard these restrictions on their power as they so often do, the mandates of the resulting treaty would not be the law of land, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 33:
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed.... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]
Thomas Jefferson echoed that point specifically as it pertains to the topic of treaties. Jefferson wrote, “In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.”
At another time, he reiterated this principle of constitutional construction, saying, “Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."
In a letter to his colleague, collaborator, and friend, James Madison, Jefferson agreed that “the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced” by application of the principle that a treaty cannot contradict the Constitution and yet still enjoy the approval of that document.
Again, my son couldn’t justify crashing my car into a lake by pointing to my permission to drive it to the movies.
In defense of Senator Cornyn and the other 49 senators who signed the letter — although in reality, as proved above, treaties that violate the Constitution are prima facie null, void, of no legal effect — in recent years, the Supreme Court has come down on both sides of the supremacy issue.
In a pair of contradictory decisions, the Supreme Court has held that “No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power” (Missouri v. Holland) and “constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty” (Reid v. Covert).
This conflict of cases creates a situation where, as Alan Korwin wrote in 2012 at the time of the previous round of negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty, “While some of us would surely and boldly draw the lines where they are ‘supposed’ to be, i.e., in line with our natural and historic rights, the forces aligned against the Second Amendment have no problem arguing vigorously for its destruction, regardless of any of these details, and therein lies the greatest threat we face.”
In light of this duplicity on the part of the Supreme Court and that body’s habit of usurping legislative authority, when it comes to preserving the right to keep and bear arms, letters from the Senate will not be enough to protect this most precious right. In this matter as in so many others, the states and the people will be required to uphold the liberties protected by our Constitution in the face of federal collusion with the international forces of civilian disarmament.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He is the host of The New American Review radio show that is simulcast on YouTube every Monday. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...un-arms-treaty