UN Ordered To Kill American Troops Who Donít Turn In Their Guns

William Wallace / 1 day ago

It seems that during the election season, the UN may have had a reason to send troops to watch our polls. There is being leaked information that the UN has been given orders to fire on American citizens that wonít turn in their guns.
Most of what will be revolves around a Supreme Court case that is yet to be decided that was heard on the 5th of November. There has been little or no press coverage of the Bond vs the United States case.
In Bond vs the United States, a crazy woman tried to poison her ex and his mistress. Leave it to the U.S. Department of Justice and President Obama to pursue the case as vital to national security that this woman be tried under international law instead of US state law in which she was found guilty of attempted murder. They have a more sinister plan in mind.
The fact is that if Bond vs the United States goes through, they can use international treaty to enforce any action they want to. Now who remembers that John Kerry signed the treaty for the UN Small Arms.
If that unholy legislation were to be enforced, then it would give the United Nations the right to come in and take the weapons away from lawful, gun owning citizens. In one swift move they could take away the Second Amendment of the United Stateís Constitution.
Now there are reports and information being put out that if that comes to pass, the UN has the authority to fire on American citizens. Not only do they have the right, they have been ordered to do so.

Published on Jul 16, 2012
Please spread the Word.
"Complete disarmament" of the American people
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, July 16, 2012
The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "...the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."
"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish -- taking a huge bite out of the second amendment -- is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.