Obama, The UN and Our Right To Bear Arms
This is an article I found the other day and felt the need to re-post here. You can find more information here under the links section about the UN Disarmament Plans currently in progress.
The original article can be found here: http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2010/01/13/obama-the-un-and-the-right-to-bear-arms/
Obama, the U.N., and the Right to Bear Arms
By: Guest Authors
By: Greg Halvorson
As anyone who hasn’t been sailing solo around the world or living in a cave knows, the United States Constitution is under attack. The Democrat-controlled health care bill, which, if passed, will designate 16% of the economy to the government, and the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, which, if passed, will mean “global warming” will have hijacked our future, provide ample evidence. The Founding Fathers (remember them?) restricted “statism,” limiting central government to the funding of defense and the delivery of mail. Today, however, we’ve flouted their vision. Every aspect of life, from medicine to energy, is a call to “spend and rule.” The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” yet few adhere to this construct. It goes on to say, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….” And it is here, boldly, where Force comes into play. The destruction of truths being patent, government must preserve, through machinations and legislation, a sometimes overt, sometimes clandestine, and always inexorable, usurpation of liberty. George Bush conceived the Patriot Act, a questionably legal bill, and now his successor, who keeps it in place, threatens Freedom by targeting guns.
C.I.F.T.A., a U.N. treaty, which purports to limit arms-trafficking, is his vector. Bill Clinton signed CIFTA in 1997, but the Republican-controlled Senate wouldn’t ratify, and the “evil” George Bush stone-walled for eight years. Today, with leftists in power, there is no stone-walling. In October, the United States reversed course, declaring that it was amenable to the treaty, and proceeded to back a time-table for signing. The set-up occurred last April, when Obama, meeting with Felipe Calderon, declared that “90% of guns recovered by Mexican authorities come from the U.S., many from shops that line our shared border.” (False—he QUINTUPLED the figure—but early on, the president abjured facts.) In Mexico, he went on to say: “At a time when the Mexican government has so courageously taken on the drug cartels that have plagued the border, it is absolutely critical that the U.S. partner in dealing with these issues…. I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty (CIFTA) to curb arms trafficking that is a source of many weapons used in the drug war.”
Of course, this sounds great. (What liberal policy meant to engineer every aspect of life doesn’t?) But rhetorical euphony is laced with pitfalls. Consider that of the 33 western nations that would be affected by CIFTA, not a single one shares the protection afforded by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. How, given this, can it be anything but parlous? Does anyone, besides a Right-wing Rogue, sense danger in being bound to “law” eagerly signed by Venezuela and Cuba? Alan Korwin, at GunLaws.com, points out that CIFTA clears the way for a national gun registry, a legislative non-starter. The treaty, if implemented, would require the U.S. to adopt “licensing requirements,” to mark firearms when they’re made, and to establish “information sharing” between CIFTA nations. Americans could conceivably be required to obtain a license “per/round,” be banned from adding features to weapons, and have the whereabouts, type and number of their arms disclosed to foreign powers.
Clearly, then, this is less about smuggling than it is about control. John Bolton, former U.S. representative to the U.N., observes that “the Obama administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about trade between nations, but there’s no doubt—as was the case over a decade ago—that the real agenda is the control of domestic arms.”
That the treaty “reassures” signatories that it is “not intended to discourage or diminish lawful, leisure, or recreational activities, such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by State Parties,” is hardly a comfort. Since when are U.S citizens subjected to what is deemed “lawful” by foreign lands? The right to keep and bear arms is SINGULAR to America, UNRECOGNIZED elsewhere, and this being the case, is FUNDAMENTAL to Freedom. Rights don’t wane. Designed not merely to allow for “leisure and recreation,” but as the final recourse against tyranny, the Second Amendment is neither negotiable nor interpretable nor amendable.
As for Obama, his posture is worrisome. An untested acolyte who renounces America is backing policies that eviscerate self-defense? George Washington once said, “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance. They are the people’s liberty’s teeth.” He also said, “the very atmosphere of arms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
I wonder what he would think of Obama. Both are presidents; yet to compare them is folly. Washington commanded Revolutionary troops. Obama reads a teleprompter. Washington stewarded a nation toward greatness. Obama, decrying it, seeks to punish wealth. The irony lies in their civic influence. As integral to our history as Washington remains, if our current president “transforms” America, his mark on Liberty may be as profound.