Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. | The New American
At a meeting to discuss gun control held at the United Nations on June 25, representatives of the global anti-gun lobby were discouraged by the U.S. Senate’s failure to ratify the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
“Unfortunately, the United States, the world’s largest arms exporter, has signed but not ratified the treaty,” said Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Security Studies Programme in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Goldring went on to lament that the U.S. Senate doesn’t seem disposed to act on approving the treaty and likely won’t “for many years.”
For now, it seems Goldring’s gauge of the political climate in the Senate is accurate. In a letter sent to President Barack Obama last October, 50 senators laid out six reasons the president should refuse to present the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to the Senate for ratification. Among the objections is the grant to “foreign sources of authority” the power to “impose judgment or control on the U.S.”
At the conference, held to discuss the Programme of Action (PoA) to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Goldring told lobbyists representing both sides of the issue that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations in the United States have spread lies regarding the potential effect of the Arms Trade Treaty on the right to keep and bear arms.
“The simple truth is the ATT does not affect the domestic trade in weapons in the United States. It’s a treaty about international arms transfers, not sales within the United States,” she added.
In case a reader would rather read the text of the treaty than to take the word of a UN representative, the English-language version of the Arms Trade Treaty can be found here. Beyond that, here are a few provisions of the treaty that would, despite Goldring’s assurances, directly and immediately impact the full expression of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
• Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.
• Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.
• Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.
• Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”
Goldring thinks such steps are but the first in a path that leads to “better control” of the trade of weapons. There is little doubt who would be left in control of firearms if Goldring gets her way. The United Nations, acting through domestic enforcers, would require registration of weapons, which Americans recognize as the first step toward their control and outright confiscation.
The right to keep and bear arms was known to our Founders as he ultimate check on the rise of tyrants. Americans jealous of this God-given right know that now is the time to reject the UN’s attempts to repeal the Second Amendment and that organization is the key to safeguarding their gun rights.
For more than half a century, The John Birch Society has offered patriots an opportunity to unite in the cause of preserving the Constitution and enforcing its principles of limited government. Not long after its founding, the JBS launched its project to get the United States out of the United Nations — and this project remains one of the most timely and critical aspects of the JBS agenda.
MORE HYPE ABOUT IMMINENT UNITED NATIONS GUN CONFISCATION
by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief
Dave Hodges was at his hyperactive worst this week as he turned a UN job offering for disarmament workers in Africa into an imminent threat for US gun confiscation. He wasn’t alone—this story was crawling all over the web this week, but Hodges’ was the most outrageous purveyor of this hype:
I have been writing that my military sources tell me that their greatest fears are beginning to become realized because the United States will be, in the relatively near future… under martial law and the bulk of the occupation force will be comprised by foreign troops operating under the flag of the United Nations. [I can’t even begin to cover the number of false claims on the net about thousands of foreign troops on US soil. There are some foreign troops doing cross training with the US, but never any more than a hundred at a time, and they aren’t staying.]
The United Nations is advertising for the following position:
Job Title Code: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer
Duty Station: New York [That’s because the official address of the UN is in New York where training will occur—but the jobs are in various peacekeeping hot spots around the world, mostly in Africa and the Carribean.]
Job Description: A minimum of seven years of progressively responsible experience in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration or related area. Experience working within peacekeeping, peace-building or development programs operations is desirable. Experience with small arms control, conflict/post-conflict crisis management, economic recovery is desirable. Experience coordinating multiple partner agencies, funds or programs is desirable.
Now, I’m no fan of the UN but I object to how Hodges puts his own exaggerated spin on this:
Peacekeeping is normally the euphemism reserved for gun confiscation and population subjugation. [Not necessarily. UN peacekeeping is usually about taking sides politically that favor or protect communists in third world countries and looks the other way at petty tyrants until their actions turn into a tribal bloodbath—which gives the UN an excuse to come in and intervene. But, rarely are the bad guys disarmed.] If there is any doubt to the veracity of this claim, the following phrase “Experience with small arms control“, should remove any doubt as to what is coming. [—Implying that the target is the US. Not at all. The US isn’t planning on using foreign troops to confiscate US guns. They’ll use our own SWAT teams and the US military, but only after war comes and gives them the excuse. Currently, especially in Africa, UN peacekeepers do perform some disarming of combatants, but not necessarily the bad guys.]
Further, the phrase “reintegration” is also significant. By definition, what is a re-education camp designed for? Quite simply put, it is designed for reintegration back into society. Back into society from where? This question can be answered with a pair of four letter words, FEMA Camp.
I have no doubt that the US is planning on rounding up dissidents someday and disarming them, but in Africa peacekeeping operations (usually very flawed) they do have to do a lot of reintegration, but from refugee camps not FEMA camps. We mustn’t let our knowledge of future bad intent of the globalists taint our views so much that we see imminent martial law in every UN pronouncement. It’s never as simple as that.
What is highly significant is that nobody seems to be talking about this illegitimate imposition of foreign troops on our soil and this notion is represented in the phrase “conflict/post conflict management“! What conflict/post conflict management? Conflict management is another euphemism reserved for one of two possibilities. First, this implies there will be a civil war. With over 260+ senior military officers fired by Obama for not embracing the future need to fire on American citizens, speaks clearly to this point...
Once again, Hodges is seeing through very distorted glasses of his own making. Africa is full of post-conflict management and so are the Balkins, which continue to flare up constantly—because the UN never does any proper conflict management nor resolution. But to infer that this job offering directly relates to a future American civil war is a huge stretch, and is made even worse by his repeating the terrible exaggeration about Obama firing over “260+ general officers” for supposedly refusing to fire on Americans.
This is bogus on its face. First, Obama didn’t personally fire anyone. In fact, Obama isn’t running the country at all—his globalist advisors are. Second, in the WAB I’ve covered the specific cases of a number of the generals that were fired for cause, and all except 2 for were for gross violations of discipline or morality—and the specific causes differed widely. But NONE were for refusing to “fire on Americans.” The two general officers who did get fired for opposing the White House were sacked for resisting an order from someone on the National Security Council—the real guys running the show in Benghazi. They had issued a stand down order to two general officers who refused to stand down their rescue efforts, so they were relieved of command on the spot. But even these two were still yes-men to the politicians as noted by their refusal to blow the whistle after forced into retirement. Hodges continues:
In order to create the manufactured need to impose martial law, the administration would need a pretext, a false flag event. I have been covering the pretext for nearly a year [he keeps hyping economic collapse, like a lot of others, which is not how the PTB are going to justify martial law]. In fact, the pretext has been rehearsed repeatedly since last fall.
Last fall, FEMA, DHS and select foreign entities extensively rehearsed for the following contingencies in the following list of preparedness and disaster drills planned and carried out over a six week period:
1. FEMA purchase orders for over $14.2 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Region III by October 1st, 2013.
2. FEMA purchase orders for 22 million pouches of emergency water to be delivered to Region III by October 1st, 2013.
3. FEMA purchase orders for $13.6 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Austin, TX. by October 1st, 2013.
4. $11 million in antibiotics to be delivered to FEMA region III by October 1st ordered by CDC
Notice that all of these had October 1st completion-by dates. These purchases were end-of-the-fiscal-year expenditures (use it or lose it type of purchases) and nothing else. All of these stockpiles are going into the Continuity of Government program, and little for civilians. These kinds of rush purchases are not signs of imminent crisis or collapse. Then, comes his big claim:
5. Nine-week training course for UN Peacekeepers in CONUS to learn Urban Warfare, English, and US weapons systems beginning late July for 386,000 troops to be completed by October 1st
I can find no other source for this other than Hodges himself, although I suspect he was fed this from one of his supposed military insider sources (which are always suspect). Regardless, the claim is ridiculous on its face. There are less than 100K UN peacekeepers in the entire world and no budget for more–let alone a quadrupling of forces and their training. Furthermore, there is no space on any current US military training base for even 20,000 additional trainees, let alone 386K.
Putting that number of foreign personnel on any US base would require several billion dollars in infrastructure costs and improvements. How are they going to hide those kinds of expenditures from Congress? Yes, they could always print the money, but how do you hide that many people? You don’t.
Then Hodges lists 5 or 6 major drills that happened last year. He and others said at the time that these were preludes to martial law. It didn’t happen, and they’ve been wrong about these predictions since at least 2012.
Last fall, I expressed serious concerns over so many of these drills taking place in such a short period of time. I raised the question of martial law arising from any one of these events going hot. [He and others said they were “going hot”] In hindsight, I think I was too close to the truth as to what is coming because even the Russian media invited me on a news show that is distributed in New York City and Washington DC, as well as in 35 other countries. On October 28, 2013, I was contacted by reporter and producer, Victoria Mashkova, from the Voice of Russia (formerly Radio Moscow), and was invited on to their radio program to discuss the possibility of martial law coming to America.
It wasn’t because he was “too close to the truth,” he was just plain wrong. But these kinds of predictions do interest KGB media sources like Russia Today (RT) and Voice of Russia who look favorably upon the Right wing opposition in America—for their own conflict creation purposes. They would have loved to run with Hodge’s evidence if he had any, but he didn’t. Here’s an example of his unverifiable claims:
Inside of the United States today, there are untold numbers of Russian troops for which I have received reports of sightings from first-hand witnesses.
None of those supposed witnesses to “untold numbers” of Russians have taken any pictures, and nearly everyone has a cell phone camera to do so—very telling. Sure a few Russians have been seen, but not huge groups, as claimed. And, none have given specific directions to or location of large concentrations so claims can be corroborated. Every time someone has given specific locations (like the claimed 300K Chinese troops across the border in Mexico from a specific US city) I’ve had subscribers from that city go immediately to check it out and there’s NOTHING there—time and again.
At the beginning of the interview, the Russian host, Kate Zickel, introduced me as merely the “Host of The Common Sense Show” and there was no mention of my academic credentials.
This is what Hodges considers academic credentials (his words): “I am a retired college basketball coach. A former mental health counselor. I have taught graduate and undergraduate psychology, sociology and research classes.” Those kinds of statements mean nothing in terms of academic credentials. Why not tell us his specific degrees and the universities where he taught if these claims are everything he says they are. I’ve known many who have taught a few community classes and later claimed to be “professors.”
Immediately, I felt this was an attempt to marginalize my credibility by ignoring the requested credentials I provided VOR [no mainstream outfit would dare parade those general claims as credentials—In my opinion, they did him a service by saying truthfully that he was the host of the “Common Sense show. Why should he consider that as sabotage of his credentials?]
Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars.com also covered the same UN job solicitation, and although he also suspects these kinds of trainees will someday be turned loose in America, he had the intellectual honesty to admit that,
Although the posting prompted feverish speculation that the UN was about to embark on a mass gun confiscation program within the United States, it’s important to note that the DDR program is only currently active in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast and Haiti.
At least Watson did some actual research—I always appreciate honest reporting that doesn’t jump to cheap conclusions, even when we know that ultimately our government has evil intentions relative to our right of dissent.