Thread: OBAMA EYES GLOBAL GUN CONTROL AND MARTIAL LAW, CRITICS SAY

OBAMA EYES GLOBAL GUN CONTROL AND MARTIAL LAW, CRITICS SAY

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
May 10, 2010
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com

While most news media outlets and the American people are engulfed in news coverage regarding the economy, the 2010 elections, the Gulf oil spill and other stories, little if any news coverage exists about two major actions being considered by President Barack Obama and progressive lawmakers.

First, news of a increased role for the military within the United States is being totally ignored or suger-coated by the media, according to conservative observers. And second, apparently the United States will sign-on to an International Gun Control Plan, backed by Secretary Hillary Clinton. http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... Q920091015

Numerous occurrences in the United States -- both scheduled events and emergencies -- require the Department of Defense to coordinate, integrate, and synchronize its homeland defense and civil support missions with a broad range of U.S. federal agencies, according to a congressional report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

In response to congressional inquiry, the Government Accountability Office examined the extent to which the Defense Department has identified "clearly defined roles and responsibilities for DOD entities to facilitate interagency coordination for homeland defense and civil support missions." http://www.gao.gov/

"In other words, how can the Army or Marines usurp the authority of local police officers and citizen volunteer groups during a so-called emergency," cautions former New York police detective and intelligence officer Sid Franes.

"Why would I be surprised? Obama has no regard for Constitutional authority and therefore he'll disregard it's provisions and the subsequent laws such as Posse Comitatus," he added. http://www.pacificfreepress.com/.../540 ... words.html

The report to congress articulated to its federal partners the DOD entities' approach toward interagency coordination, and adopted key practices for managing homeland defense and civil support liaisons.

The GAO reviewed numerous DOD policy and guidance documents and interviewed officials from DOD and its partner agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

DOD has many strategy, policy, and guidance documents on interagency coordination for its homeland defense and civil support missions; however, DOD entities do not have fully or clearly defined roles and responsibilities, according to the report submitted to the U.S. Congress.

Overall, the GAO analysts found:

* DOD makes great effort to communicate with its federal partners through conferences and other forums and multiple documents, but it lacks a single, readily accessible source for its interagency partners to find needed information about its processes. The 2008 National Defense Strategy notes that a unified "whole-of-government" approach to national security issues requires "that federal partner agencies understand core competencies, roles, and missions, and the National Response Framework highlights the value of using a common concise partner guide for this purpose."

* DOD's communication approach, however, relies largely on personal relationships that are subject to frequent rotation of both DOD and non-DOD personnel. DOD identified over 30 documents that embody its approach and processes for interagency coordination. A concise and readily accessible partner guide would provide incoming personnel from both DOD and other agencies information that could enhance their mutual understanding and facilitate a unified and institutionalized approach to interagency coordination, stated the report.

* DOD has taken some actions to adopt key practices for managing homeland defense and civil support liaison personnel, but it has not fully implemented these practices. "Key practices include situational awareness, staffing-needs assessments, position descriptions, training, and performance assessments," wrote the GAO officials.

* DOD could optimize its use of liaisons if it fully implemented current DOD human capital policies and issued policies and guidance for the remaining key practices, according to GAO officials.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pushing for the United States to become a party to a global gun control law. And President Obama appears to be sympathetic to such an international power-grab.

Last week, the Obama Administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama Administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations," according to journalist Joan Sharon. http://www.gunowners.org/op05042010ep.htm

By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the U.S. State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the U.S. Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.

These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as radical billionaire George Soros and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/ ... s/PR.shtml

"The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms," according to Sharon.

"The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened," she added.

Critics believe Obama will appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation in the United States that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. http://www.community.marketwatch.com/.. ... rol-backed

"We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment," Ms. Sharon stated.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news197.htm

Question; At what point and what power does a global Treaty have over the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?

Question; At what point and what power does a global Treaty have over the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?

Absolutely none. The US Supreme Court has ruled that international treaties do not take precedence over the US Constitution (although treaties could take precedence over the individual constitutions of the states). See below:

Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution

From the following link

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/stat ... eaties.htm

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push 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

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) 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 a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"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? Keep reading.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

I PRAY TO GOD THAT OUR CONGRESS FINALLY SEES THE LIGHT AND GETS OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE BEFORE HE DOES ANYMORE DAMANGE TO OUR COUNTRY!

A good point to remember is that barry is trying to stack SCOTUS with liberals. Dodomayor is a firm believer that international law could outweigh our Constitution. She is not alone in that opinion in our gooberment.