Posts Tagged firearms
July 25 2012
Here’s Part 1 of my interview with “Mark”, a firearms industry executive & part-time police officer. Mark is a patriot who’s in touch with other police officers around the country, including Chicago which already has a gun ban in place and remains one of the most violent cities in the U.S. Mark says Obama’s shed tears for what happened in Aurora, but not a single tear for what happens every day in Chicago – his hometown. We talk about the UN Gun Ban Treaty as well.
Here’s Part 2 of my interview with “Mark”, a firearms industry executive & part-time police officer. Mark is a patriot who’s in touch with other police officers around the country, including Chicago which already has a gun ban in place and remains one of the most violent cities in the U.S. Mark says Obama’s shed tears for what happened in Aurora, but not a single tear for what happens every day in Chicago – his hometown. In this segment Marc gives us the inside scoop on who’s buying guns & why.
via: New American
by: Thomas R. Eddlem
July 17, 2012
The United Nations is polishing up a global Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) this month in a New York convention that would create a global registry of private ownership of firearms. This treaty — which would also mandate creation of a national collection agency for those guns and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — has the long-standing and enthusiastic backing of the Obama State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms,” Hillary Clinton noted as early as October 14, 2009. Clinton boasted that “the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions.” Of course, that speech was delivered at the same time the Obama administration was transferring some 2,000 small arms to Mexican drug gangs in the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal.
The State Department website nevertheless absurdly continues to boast that “The United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the ‘gold standard’ of export controls for arms transfers.”
In view of such obviously false public statements, one may question the sincerity of Obama State Department promises about“redlines” to the UN ATT, which supposedly protect the Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.” The Obama State Department also promises “There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.”
So America’s Second Amendment rights are safe, right?
Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N.
The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.
The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.
Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.
The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that “parties (to the treaty) take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within (their) territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.”
The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take “all necessary measures.”
This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: “After the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.”
Three world wars were predicted by Freemason Albert Pike in 1871. At he end of the World War I, the League of Nations was formed; at the end of World War II the United Nations was formed and at the end of World War III the New World Order will be born. But first countries like the United States that have a Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to “keep and bear arms” must be eliminated through treaties, war, civil war; or a combination of those events.
In short, we are living in perilous times and our once great Republic is dying-on-the-vine because of our involvement with the United Nations.
How the United States ever got involved with the United Nations and didn’t reject it, as they did the League of Nations is some what of a mystery, so let’s explore the ‘why’.
The League of Nations didn’t have military to use from the League members, as the United Nations enjoys. The Leagues history is filled with conflict similar to the United Nations today.
The United Nations uses NATO and the United States; along with other member states as a private military. Communist countries were not allowed to join the League of Nations, leaving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics out. The United Nations would allow any country to join. Infact the United Nations favors communist countries and the top general of the United Nations military is always a communist. We had a communist at the top when fighting the Korean War.
In communist countries they always have a capitalist elite that is free to earn more wealth through investment, free to travel as they wish and free to exploit the work of the general public on their behalf. A new organization was needed that would fulfilled the desires of the wealthiest capitalists and the idea was to form a new League, that would actually favor communist countries. The idea became a reality when the United Nations was formed.
The United Nation was funded by Rothschild family to increase their wealth through IMF, World Bank and help protect Israel. Rockefeller donated 18 acres of prime real estate in Manhattan for the United Nations to sit on. The United Nations Charter was written by Alger Hiss. (Myron C. Fagan book is available on the internet, it is worth a read to fully understand why Capitalists prefer Communism.) Near the end of World War II President Roosevelt sent Hiss to Yalta to draw the postwar boundaries for countries in Europe. The Senate never bothered to read the United Nations Treaty, but passed it anyway. Hiss, a communist, was later arrested for being a spy for the Soviets and sentenced to prison in 1950, released in Nov. of 1954.
Read through the “10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto” and you will discover how close we are in the United States to a communist country. What we lack is strong firearms laws to do away with our guaranteed right under the Second Amendment, a Right granted by our Creator himself.
July 5, 2012
As highlighted on our new policy page http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/ApI7UWRj6OCZpd, in order to comply with the Google Shopping policies you need to comply first with the AdWords policies http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/StQ08jAzM4fVtG.
We do not allow the promotion or sale of weapons and any related products such as ammunition’s or accessory kits on Google Shopping.
In order to comply with our new policies, please remove any weapon-related products from your data feed and then re-submit your feed in the Merchant Center. For more information on this policy please visithttp://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/GbBNIGHOribLzf.”
In the letter, Google lists four principles by which they govern Google Shopping.
1) Google Shopping should provide a positive experience to users.
- If someone can’t find a product that is perfectly legal to purchase, how is this a positive experience? Clearly they do not want criminals purchasing weapons and ammunition for malicious reasons – as Guns and Ammo puts it, “But what about law-abiding, responsible gun owners?”
2) Google Shopping should be safe for all users.
- This point in Google’s letter is referring to the virtual safety of its users. This point states “Scams, phishing, viruses, and other malicious activities on the Internet damage the value of the Internet for everyone.” Nothing here implies they are worried about the physical safety of customers. Guns and Ammo points out “it’s still OK to shop for kitchen knives, which work just the same on people as they do on veggies.”
3) Google Shopping should comply with local laws and regulations.
- Sure, different regulations exist, but it is still legal to responsibly purchase guns, ammo, and accessories in the United States. Google says, “Our policies are often more restrictive than the law, because we need to be sure we can offer services that are legal and safe for all users.” So what about that Second Amendment? This is 2012 – if Google, one of the leaders in Internet technology, can’t figure out how to regulate sales of guns by state, they have no business selling anything online.
July 7, 2012
Source Links and video text for Today’s Items are located at:
by: Susanne Possel
July 5, 2012
George Soros’ Media Matters (MM) has released propaganda to support the UN’s endeavor to create an international control over guns. MM calls the equation of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to the eradication of the 2nd Amendment in the US as “laughable conspiracy [that] has no place in reality.”
MM goes on to claim that “top officials from the United Nations, the United States, and other high profile supporters have repeatedly and clearly said that the treaty does not aim to restrict anyone’s ‘freedom to own’ a gun. Indeed, the U.N. General Assembly’s resolution on the treaty makes clear that countries will ‘exclusively’ maintain the right within their borders to ‘regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownerships.’”
At the UN’s ATT Conference being held in NY, the US representatives are complaining about retaining their ability to continue selling military armory internationally and how the treaty would restrict their sales to nations with more human rights records.
The chair of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina, has stated that the definitive goal of the small arms treaty “is to try to have common standards to be applied by all countries when they export or import weapons.”
The Obama administration is in full support of the ATT. Both Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN and Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State said in a letter that they “strongly urge the United States to take a leadership role in pushing for a strong, verifiable Arms Trade Treaty.”
More than 150 countries are represented at the conference where the UN hopes to finalize the ATT that will legally bind all nations of the world to their rules and regulations on gun control and individual gun ownership.
While using the illegal arms market as their platform of reform, the UN aims to override sovereign nations and their citizen’s rights to own firearms.