Saturday, August 25, 2012

UN Arms Trade Treaty. Your 2nd Amendment Gun Rights are About to Disappear.

Are the recently highly publicised shootings, aka manchurian candidate/MKUltra activations part of the Obama administration agenda to further the closure of our second amendment rights?  

I have already written about James Holmes and his activiation as a Manchurian Candidate to turn people to feel fear about guns and weapons.  

I have also mentioned the shooter at the temple in Wisconsin, who also fits the profile for a Manchurian Candidate. 

Now, we have the shooter in the area of the Empire State Building from yesterday, who also fits the profile of the Manchurian Candidate. 

Disgruntled Worker Opens Fire Near Empire State Building, Leaving Two Dead and Nine Injured

Two are dead and nine injured after what appears to be a reported workplace dispute escalated into gunfire at one of New York City's most iconic landmarks

Mark Lennihan / AP
Bystanders and a police officer stand on Fifth Avenue to view the scene after a multiple shooting outside the Empire State Building, Friday, Aug. 24, 2012, in New York.

A recently fired retail-store worker shot a former colleague to death Friday morning at the Empire State Building before opening fire on bystanders near the New York City skyscraper, according to police authorities. Two are dead, including the shooter, identified as Jeffrey Johnson, 53. According to police commissioner Ray Kelly, nine people were injured in the shooting, which broke out at 9:03 a.m. as commuters headed to work in the busy business hub in midtown Manhattan. The shooter is thought to have acted alone. A TIME reporter saw a body covered in a white sheet lying on the sidewalk.
Johnson is reported to be a disgruntled ex-employee of a business at 10 West 33rd Street who was seeking revenge on his former company, from which he was fired during a downsizing effort a year ago. According to Kelly, Johnson wielded a .45-caliber handgun as he walked to Hazan Imports, a designer of women’s accessories. After shooting a man identified by police as the company’s vice president of sales, Steven Ercolino, 41, outside the business,  Johnson walked away from the building. When he encountered two police officers making their normal rounds near the building’s Fifth Avenue entrance, he opened fire “and tried to shoot at the cops,” Mayor Mike Bloomberg said. The two NYPD officers returned fire, fatally shooting Johnson using a total of 14 rounds. Nine bystanders were injured in the ensuing gunfire. Bloomberg said, “Some may have been shot accidentally by police officers responding immediately while confronting the suspect.”
Read more:

UN Small Arms Treaty: Barack Obama’s Backdoor Gun Control May Pass

There are always enemies of individual liberty.  Many, in socialist and globalist circles, hate the fact that the common US citizen can exercise his or her liberty of free speech, worship without government intrusion, and is protected by ‘due process of law’.  However, there is no hate in this world among those who promote and prop up tyranny like there is against the 2nd Amendment: the US citizen’s God-given liberty to own firearms.
This is why men, like George Soros, put in an ‘honest day’s work’ attempting to utilize United Nations powers in order to neutralize US sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment with it.  According to John Wolverton, II of The New American, Soros is pulling every little string possible to strip your home of its defenses against crime and tyranny:
George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.
Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.”
While it is difficult to sift through the various UN treaties, the ‘small arms treaty’ is a part of a much larger initiative to curtail individual gun rights.  In essence, the ‘small arms treaty’, the ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty, and the ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ can be bundled into one giant effort to remove US sovereignty, giving the UN control over the liberties of US citizens, nullifying protections Americans have enjoyed since the birth of the US.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have already vowed to sign such a treaty.  In fact, both have largely been working behind closed doors, as they know full-well that Americans would surely show staunch resistance if their agenda committed to ‘open war’.
Douglas J. Hagmann of the reports:
Regardless of how unlikely it would appear that the U.S. Senate would ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the antagonism to the right to bear arms in the U.S. by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and our elected officials cannot be disputed. While seeming to loathe the Second Amendment, the majority of their efforts to enforce gun control appear to be “under the radar” to avoid raising the ire of the advocates of the right to bear arms.”
What does this mean for Americans?  All of these ‘treaties’ have a common thread, which boil down to 4 directives.  Katie Pavlich, the Editor of, reports:
-Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
-Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
-Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the anti-gun media never seem to grasp).
-Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.”
According to various White House insiders, Barack Hussein Obama has not been idle, saying, “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” he continues …“We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”  Perhaps, this is why the President has been curiously silent on the subject, as he does not want to attract attention to what he is truly doing through the various UN treaties.
Either way, this spells bad news for American gun rights.  Anthony Martin of the stated:
As the United Nations prepares its final push to ratify a controversial gun treaty, the U.S. Senate is set to approve the measure which critics say will not only give away U.S. sovereignty but directly attack the individual gun rights of American citizens, according to a report published Thursday at Stand Up America.
Democrats still hold the majority in the Senate.”
If we wish to keep our liberties, then we must send a clear message to our politicians …their jobs will not survive election day if they even consider the ‘small arms treaty’ to be a good idea.  The disarmament of the American people will signal the beginning of the end of any semblance of freedom we had left.  As the saying goes, ‘Hitler, Stalin, and Mao agree …gun control works.’


U.S. overturns former position

GunOn October 14, 2009, the Obama administration announced in a statement released by Hillary Clinton and the State Department that it was overturning the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed a proposed Arms Trade treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.[11] The shift in position by the U.S., the world's biggest arms exporter with a $55-billion-a-year trade in conventional firearms[12] (40 percent of the global total), led to the launching of formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to begin drafting the Arms Trade Treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement the U.S. would support the negotiations on condition they are “under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.” Clinton said the consensus, in which every nation has an effective veto on agreements, was needed “to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be directly exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”[12]

[edit]Opposition in the United States

The Institute for Legislative Action, which is the lobbying arm of the National Rife Association, voiced opposition to the treaty, writing that:
"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S." [13]

Given the predominant position of the United States as a global arms exporter,[14] any such treaty would have limited relevance without its participation. Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval, which is rendered unlikely by opposition from gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, who claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.[15] Advocates of the treaty claim that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.[16][17] These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”
As of September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to an ATT that would limit the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.[18] As this group comprises far more than 1/3 of the Senate, it is sufficient to block ratification of the treaty by the United States if the treaty addresses civilian ownership of firearms. However, the strength of the opposition remains unclear because the treaty will not likely address the Second Amendment issue.

[edit]Advocated contents

International non-government and human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like.[19]
It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:
  • be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;
  • facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender-based violence, violent crime or organized crime;
  • violate United Nations Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;
  • be diverted from its stated recipient;
  • adversely affect regional security; or
  • seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.
Loopholes would be minimized. It would include:
  • all weapons—including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;
  • all types of transfer—including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transshipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and
  • all transactions—including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.
It must be workable and enforceable. It must:
  • provide guidelines for the treaty's full, clear implementation;
  • ensure transparency—including full annual reports of national arms transfers;
  • have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;
  • ensure accountability—with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement and sanctions;
  • include a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.
NGOs are also advocating that the Arms Trade Treaty must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma.
The U.S. NGO Second Amendment Foundation has voiced concern that a multinational treaty limiting the firearms trade might infringe on the constitutional privilege of private firearm ownership for self-defense in some countries such as the U.S.[20]

National Rifle Association

Says Barack "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’ "

National Rifle Association on Monday, June 11th, 2012 in a mailer

Barack Obama coming after guns, 'under the radar,' NRA says

President Barack Obama has shown little interest in peddling a gun control agenda during his first term, but the National Rifle Association is urging its members not to let its guard down ahead of the 2012 election.

In a new mailer, forwarded to us by a reader, the gun rights group lists "Ten Reasons Why Obama is Bad for the Second Amendment." We’ve been exploring several claims on the list this week -- you can see our findings here.

A crucial point to the don’t-sleep-on-Obama thinking comes in as reason No. 10 on the NRA list: "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’"

The quote and the claim struck us as interesting because 1.) It’s typically not smart to say you’re doing something "under the radar," if you’re actually doing something under the radar, and 2.) It suggests something of a conspiracy because Sarah Brady is a prominent gun control advocate, having helped create the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence with her husband Jim. (We’re assuming you know the Brady story, but if you don’t --this will help.)

We decided to check it out.

While the NRA didn’t respond to our questions about the claim, we found the genesis of the Obama quote easy enough.

It comes from a 2011 Washington Postprofile of White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley. It’s not a direct quote from Obama, rather it’s Brady recalling to Post reporter Jason Horowitz her meeting with Obama on March 30, 2011, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Here’s what Horowitz wrote:

During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former Vice President Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.
Smith & Wesson Revolversa 
"He just laughed," Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.

The rest of the Post article focuses on how Democrats and the Obama administration have largely ignored gun control issues, how Obama has failed to deliver on a promise to eliminate an amendment requiring the FBI to destroy records of gun buyers’ background checks, and how Obama chose to avoid a debate over gun issues in the weeks and months after the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

We contacted Post reporter Jason Horowitz, who declined to comment.

To recap: The Washington Post reported that Sarah Brady said Obama told her his administration is "working on it," likely referring to gun control (in what way is unclear in the article). And Brady then tells the Post Obama said, "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

The quote then gets distorted by the NRA to "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’"

Although the wording leaves plenty of room for interpretation, it's not accurate to summarize that quote by saying  "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns" because the specifics of Obama’s comment -- as relayed by Brady -- are unknown.

We contacted Brady, who told us her quote has been misinterpreted and that she herself never spoke with Obama about gun policy.

"I so remember (Jason) Horowitz -- he was at the press get-together in the briefing room after our meeting. (Her husband) Jim was asked lots of questions -- then (Horowitz) followed me as we walked out of the briefing room until he got back into the main part of the West Wing. He kept trying to pin me down -- asking what I thought -- I was trying to be evasive as I didn't want to paint Obama as with us or against us -- as we hadn't really talked about it. If I remember correctly, I just kept shaking my head and trying to get away from him. What ever I might have said or agreed to was purely speculative as I never spoke to the president myself about this issue."

We also spoke with one of the few other people in the room during the meeting between the Bradys and Obama -- Paul Helmke, the former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Helmke told us he did not recall Obama making any specific promises on gun issues, and that if Obama was talking about anything, it was likely a proposal to require gun shops in border states to report purchases of two or more of semi-automatic rifles if they were made within a five-day window by the same person.

The federal proposal was first considered in December 2010, and went through a lengthy public comment process during the first six months of 2011. The rule was implemented in July, though it is being challenged in court by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Helmke said the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence had been discussing the proposal to better track multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles with the Department of Justice before meeting with the president.

"I don't think (Obama) should be seen as referencing anything more than just requiring border-area gun dealers to report multiple sales of long guns," Helmke said.

If that context is correct, Obama’s statements fall far short of what the NRA claims, namely that Obama is "coming for our guns."

But even if Helmke is wrong, the NRA -- which did not respond to us -- has produced no evidence that the president is crafting a plot to take away firearms. Not through his policies. Or his words.

On top of that, the context of the quote is being challenged by the person who gave it -- Brady.

Our ruling

In a mailer, the National Rifle Association says that  "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’ "

We found no evidence of an Obama admission anything like the NRA suggests.
What happened is Brady gave an interview to the Washington Post, where she recalled what the president said to her during a private meeting.
But the NRA makes a tremendous leap by concluding that the quote shows that "Obama admits he's coming for our guns." A person at the meeting said Obama was likely referring to an in-the-works program to get gun dealers in border states to forward some gun purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Brady says she never talked to Obama about gun policy.

The NRA has taken a fragment of an unclear quote and prescribed the most far-reaching, conspiratorial conclusion. There simply isn't enough evidence for such a sweeping claim. We rate it Pants on Fire.

NRA official: Obama wants to outlaw guns in 2nd term
By Sean Lengell - The Washington Times
A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.

While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said.

"We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution."

Mr. LaPierre said the president's two Supreme Court appointees — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan— are "two of the most rabid anti-gun justices in history." He also accused Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of being a foe of gun rights.
And with the possibility of two or more Supreme Court justice positions opening during the next four years, the NRA official warned that gun ownership would be in jeopardy if Mr. Obama stays in office.

"If we get one more like those three, the Second Amendment is finished," he said. "It'll be the end of our freedom forever."

Mr. LaPierre, who said "there is no greater freedom than to own a firearm," predicted that gun owners will rally en masse to defeat Mr. Obama in November.

"All of what we know is good and right about America, all of it could be lost if Barack Obama is re-elected," he said. "It's all or nothing."

Read more: NRA official: Obama wants to outlaw guns in 2nd term - Washington Times 

About 2016: Obama’s America

2016 Obama's America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world’s most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man's past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, "If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?"
Across the globe and in America, people in 2008 hungered for a leader who would unite and lift us from economic turmoil and war. True to America’s ideals, they invested their hope in a new kind of president, Barack Obama. What they didn't know is that Obama is a man with a past, and in powerful ways that past defines him--who he is, how he thinks, and where he intends to take America and the world.
Immersed in exotic locales across four continents, best selling author Dinesh D’Souza races against time to find answers to Obama’s past and reveal where America will be in 2016. During this journey he discovers how Hope and Change became radically misunderstood, and identifies new flashpoints for hot wars in mankind’s greatest struggle. The journey moves quickly over the arc of the old colonial empires, into America’s empire of liberty, and we see the unfolding realignment of nations and the shape of the global future.
Emotionally engaging, 2016 Obama’s America will make you confounded and cheer as you discover the mysteries and answers to your greatest aspirations and worst fears.
Love him or hate him, you don’t know him.


Anonymous said...

Tomorrow's the big day for the Small Arms Treaty! Don't let your guard down!

Anonymous said...

Tomorrow's the big day for the Small Arms Treaty! Don't let your guard down!