Archive

Archive for the ‘The United Nations’ Category

45 LIES The World’s Most Powerful Terrorist, barack hussain soetero-obama, Told In Front Of The UN

September 27, 2013 2 comments

TWG: Now some of these answers by Mr. Swanson I am NOT in agreement.  I simply want to point out the response.  The rest, I’ll save for another post

 

As Written By David Swanson

1. President Obama’s opening lines at the U.N. on Tuesday looked down on people who would think to settle disputes with war. Obama was disingenuously avoiding the fact that earlier this month he sought to drop missiles into a country to “send a message” but was blocked by the U.S. Congress, the U.N., the nations of the world, and popular opposition — after which Obama arrived at diplomacy as a last resort.

2. “It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.” Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in “our thinking.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The U.N. Charter re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or U.N.-authorized.

3. “[P]eople are being lifted out of poverty,” Obama said, crediting actions by himself and others in response to the economic crash of five years ago. But downward global trends in poverty are steady and long pre-date Obama’s entry into politics. And such a trend does not exist in the U.S.

4. “Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war,” Obama said. In reality, Obama pushed Iraq hard to allow that occupation to continue, and was rejected just as Congress rejected his missiles-for-Syria proposal. Obama expanded the war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded, after essentially creating, drone wars. Obama has increased global U.S. troop presence, global U.S. weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest military. He’s put “special” forces into many countries, waged a war on Libya, and pushed for an attack on Syria. How does all of this “end a decade of war”? And how did his predecessor get a decade in office anyway?

5. “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” In reality, Bruce Riedel, who coordinated a review of Afghanistan policy for President Obama said, “The pressure we’ve put on [jihadist forces] in the past year has also drawn them together, meaning that the network of alliances is growing stronger not weaker.” (New York Times, May 9, 2010.)

6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323.

7. “… so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible.” On June 7, 2013, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but “they never asked us.” In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted. A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he’d attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested — had he been charged with some crime. This weeks drone victims, like all the others, had never been indicted or their arrest sought.

8. “… and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.” There are hundreds of confirmed civilian dead from U.S. drones, something the Obama administration seems inclined to keep as quiet as possible.

9. “And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.” In reality, President Obama is not pursuing peace or the control of such weapons or their reduction and elimination in all countries, only particular countries. And the United States remains the top possessor of weapons of mass destruction and the top supplier of weapons to the world.

10. “[In Syria, P]eaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. … America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition.” In fact, the United States has armed a violent opposition intent on waging war and heavily influenced if not dominated by foreign fighters and fanatics.

11. “[T]he regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.” Maybe, but where’s the evidence? Even Colin Powell brought (faked) evidence.

12. “How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East?” This suggests that the United States isn’t causingconflicts in the Middle East or aggravating them prior to altering its position and “responding.” In fact, arming and supporting brutal governments in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Israel, etc., is behavior that could do a great deal of good simply by ceasing.

13. “How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?” That isn’t a complete list of choices, as Obama discovered when Russia called Kerry’s bluff and diplomacy became a choice, just as disarmament and de-escalation and pressure for a ceasefire are choices. Telling Saudi Arabia “Stop arming the war in Syria or no more cluster bombs for you,” is a choice.

14. “What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct?” Force doesn’t have a role in civilized conduct, the most basic standard of which is relations without the use of force.

15. “[T]he international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.” Except against Israel or the United States.

16. “… and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.” This was good of Obama to recognize Iran’s suffering, but it would have been better of him to recall where Iraq acquired some of its weapons of mass destruction.

17. “It is an insult to human reason — and to the legitimacy of this institution — to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.” Really? In the absence of evidence, skepticism isn’t reasonable for this Colin-Powelled institution, the same U.N. that was told Libya would be a rescue and watched it become a war aimed at illegally overthrowing a government? Trust us?

18. “Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.” Meaning war? What about the U.N.’s commitment to oppose war? What about the United States’ violation of its commitments to destroy the chemical weapons sitting in Kentucky and Colorado? “Consequences” for the U.S. too?

19. “I do not believe that military action — by those within Syria, or by external powers — can achieve a lasting peace.” Yet, the U.S. government is shipping weapons into that action.

20. “Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria … Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country.” The Syrians should decide their own fate as long as they decide it the way I tell them to.

21. “[N]or does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists.” That’s funny. Elsewhere, you’ve said that weakening Syria would weaken Iran.

22. “[W]e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid].” And vastly more for weapons.

23. “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil…” That first remarkably honest sentence is only honest if you don’t think about what “free flow” means. The second sentence points to a real, if slow, trend but obscures the fact that only 40% of the oil the U.S. uses comes from the U.S., which doesn’t count much of the oil the U.S. military uses while “ensuring the free flow.” Nor is switching to small domestic supplies a long-term solution as switching to sustainable energy would be.

24. “But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.” In Libya? Syria? Where does this make any sense, as U.S. actions generate rather than eliminate terrorism? Michael Boyle, part of Obama’s counter-terrorism group during his 2008 election campaign, says the use of drones is having “adverse strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … . The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the US programme in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.” (The Guardian, January 7, 2013.) Why is Canada not obliged to bomb the world to “defend against terrorist attacks”?

25. “Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security …” We who? How? Congress just rejected this ludicrous claim. Ninety percent of this country laughed at it.

26. “[W]e reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.” By Israel which has done this, or by Iran which all evidence suggests has not?

27. “We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” we just choose to work against that deep belief and to sell or give vast quantities of weapons to brutal dictatorships and monarchies.

28. “Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force.” This could have been true had the U.S. attempted to impose democracy.

29. “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran’s what?

30. “Arab-Israeli conflict.” That’s a misleading way of naming the conflict between the government of Israel and the people it ethnically cleanses, occupies, and abuses — including with chemical weapons.

31. “[A]n Iranian government that has … threatened our ally Israel with destruction.” It hasn’t. And piling up the lies about Iran will make Iran less eager to talk. Just watch.

32. “We are not seeking regime change.” That’s not what Kerry told Congress, in between telling Congress just the opposite. Also, see above in this same speech: “a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy….”

33. “We insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.” Among Iran, the U.S., and Israel, it’s Iran that seems to be complying.

34. “We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” More moderate than what? Threatening to destroy Israel and creating nukes?

35. “[T]heir own sovereign state.” There’s nowhere left for Palestine to create such a separate state.

36. “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state.” Both, huh?

37. “When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt … we chose to support those who called for change” … the minute everyone else was dead, exiled, or imprisoned.

38. “[T]rue democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.” Just not in our own country and certainly not in places that buy some of the biggest piles of our weapons.

39. “But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent,” and if you don’t believe me, ask the Occupy movement — Happy Second Birthday, you guys!  I SHUT YOU DOWN, bwa ha ha ha ha.

40. “This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain.” One liberated, one targeted, and one provided with support and weaponry and former U.S. police chiefs to lead the skull cracking.

41. “[A] vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.” All criminal outrages should have a vacuum of leadership. “Who would bomb countries if we don’t do it?” is the wrong question.

42. “Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.” When was that? The United States certainly comes in at far less than exceptional in terms of per-capita humanitarian aid.  Its humanitarian bombing that Obama has in mind, but it’s never benefitted humanity.

43. “And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.” The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with “no mercy,” but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi’s threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide. What Gaddafi really threatened fits with his past behavior. There were other opportunities for massacres had he wished to commit massacres, in Zawiya, Misurata, or Ajdabiya. He did not do so. After extensive fighting in Misurata, a report by Human Rights Watch made clear that Gaddafi had targeted fighters, not civilians. Of 400,000 people in Misurata, 257 died in two months of fighting. Out of 949 wounded, less than 3 percent were women. More likely than genocide was defeat for the rebels, the same rebels who warned Western media of the looming genocide, the same rebels who theNew York Times said “feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda” and who were “making vastly inflated claims of [Gaddafi's] barbaric behavior.” The result of NATO joining the war was probably more killing, not less. It certainly extended a war that looked likely to end soon with a victory for Gaddafi.

44. “Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.” No, the war was ending, and Libya IS engulfed in bloodshed. In March 2011, the African Union had a plan for peace in Libya but was prevented by NATO, through the creation of a “no fly” zone and the initiation of bombing, to travel to Libya to discuss it. In April, the African Union was able to discuss its plan with Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, and he expressed his agreement. NATO, which had obtained a U.N. authorization to protect Libyans alleged to be in danger but no authorization to continue bombing the country or to overthrow the government, continued bombing the country and overthrowing the government.

45. [S]overeignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder.”  Says a man who reads through a list of potential murder victims on Tuesdays and ticks off the ones he wants murdered.

obamadomesticterrorist2

More On HOW The UN Gun Treaty CAN and WILL Be Enforced If We Don’t UN-SIGN IT.

September 26, 2013 3 comments

UNGunwithknot(This is posted in front of the UN Headquarters. How can ANYONE question their objectives?)

Here’s information CONFIRMING what I’ve been yelling from the rooftops about the UN Gun Grab.  They CAN enforce it, and they WILL enforce it, whether we like it or not.  It will NOT NEED SENATE RATIFICATION.

The ONLY way we’re going to get rid of this trash it if a future President, who will actually abide by the Oath they took, UN-SIGNS it.    And everyone had best keep a close eye on the Clintons as they relentlessly attempt to relinquish our Veto Rights at the UN.   With 152 member Nations AGAINST our Second Amendment, you had better believe they intend to disarm Americans.  The Clintons sold us out a LONG TIME AGO in order to secure their UN Thrones.

I suggest all the so-called “Gun RIghts Activists” stop their nay-saying about this and do some homework of their own some time.  I’m not going to listen to “This will never happen here! It has to be ratified by the Senate” BULLSHIT.     To those so-called “gun rights activists” I know who’ve been telling me I’m wrong on this, you are not my Friends anymore unless you apologize to me, correct yourselves and start calling this what it is.  Many of you have a MUCH larger audience than I and you should be helping with this instead of nay-saying it.  You know who you are.  Apologize or STAY  AWAY FROM ME.

I’ve done plenty of analysis on this issue.  I’ve read the IDDRS, which is one of the most frightening documents I’ve ever laid eyes on.   I’ve read the 1968 Gun Ban, and I’m very well versed on how treaties are ratified and how they can be enforced without ratification.   THIS WILL HAPPEN.

I know HOW they’re going to do it.   EXACTLY HOW.  The tracks were laid by them a LONG time ago and they’ve got a very detailed plan that leaves this Analytical Strategist in awe.  For now, they’re just trying to do it the “easy” way.  WHEN they decide it must happen and the time is ripe, Americans are in for one HELL of a fight, and one HELL of a nightmare.   They WILL kill those of us who show signs of non-compliance.  I suggest people wake up and start calling this what it is.

At the UN Headquarters: "Disarm OR Perish"!

At the UN Headquarters: Notice it says “Disarm OR Perish”! Not disarm and perish!

Here are some of my previous comments on this issue

Here’s more information:

UN Arms Treaty will be menace to US for years to come

By Theodore Bromund

Published September 25, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Wednesday was a serious error, one that will have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy and American sovereignty. Those consequences will be even worse because the Senate, which has signaled many times that it is opposed to the treaty, will likely have no real opportunity to reject it.

It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”

In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified.

This rule is an old one, and it used to make some sense. It would be dishonorable to sign a treaty with another country, do all the things prohibited by the treaty, and then ratify it. But that was a different era.

Since the U.N. has already defined gun control as a human right, they will not have to work very hard to make it part of the treaty.

Today, treaties are not just about international conduct. They seek to regulate how we raise our children, how we treat the disabled, and how we manage our firearms market.

As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty.

In the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Arms Export Control Act, Congress gave the Executive Branch the power to control both the import and export of firearms – indeed, of weapons of all kinds. This power is virtually unfettered. All the president has to do is to assert that a particular firearm is not suitable for “sporting” purposes and, under the 1968 Act, he can ban its import.

We have recently seen an example of this with the executive actions banning the import of Korean War vintage M1 Garand rifles, which the White House justified as a gun control measure. And since many U.S. gun manufacturers rely on imported parts and components, or financing and insurance from abroad, the Treaty also gives other countries new opportunities to affect the U.S. firearms market.

But it is the Treaty’s vague norms that pose the biggest long-term problem. At the heart of the Treaty are terms like “international humanitarian law” and “international human rights law.” By committing itself to uphold these terms, the U.S. is binding itself to meet requirements that it does not define. That will affect not only our domestic firearms market but our foreign policy.

Over the coming years, the treaty’s proponents will seek to expand what those vague terms include. Since the U.N. has already defined gun control as a human right, they will not have to work very hard to make it part of the treaty. By signing the Treaty, the U.S. has tied itself to a conveyor belt: it is no longer in control of where it is going.

Opponents of the treaty are not powerless. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and other colleagues, along with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) in the House, have made it clear that Congress is deeply skeptical about the treaty.

They can continue to voice their opposition, including by calling for hearings. In the end, a U.S. president can ‘unsign’ the treaty.

All of those actions are wise responses to a serious error by the Obama administration, one that will be a menace for years to come.

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D. is a Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations at the Heritage Foundation

Source

UN_Blue_Helmet

BREAKING: JOHN KERRY HAS JUST SIGNED THE UN ARMS TREATY

September 25, 2013 7 comments

TWG UPDATE: Rather than retype all of this, here are some of my comments and concerns over this mess, as posted yesterday in another article.

They WILL try. Here’s my questions and concerns:

1) How far will the clintons get with their relentless attempts to relinquish our veto rights at the UN cabal? With 152 member Nations standing AGAINST our gun rights, it’s not hard to see where that is headed.

2) How will obama’s MASSIVE weapons trafficking come into play there? With the obama regime trafficking weapons, finances, food, medicine, training and other war supplies to their islamic terrorist pals in the middle east, South America, and wherever else their terrorist pals are slithering around, there will be no surprise WHEN the UN cabal uses that against us. We signed the CFR a long time ago. When we did that we agreed to obey the UN if it was in the interest of “global peace”. Well, the obama regime certainly isn’t promoting “global peace” by trafficking so many weapons to their terrorist pals, are they?

3) This order will not have to be ratified. It will go forward under “Customary Law”. Forget all this nonsense about 2/3 ratification. They don’t NEED it to try and take our guns.

4) Anyone who has not read and understood the IDDRS has no knowledge of what, EXACTLY, they plan to do, how they’ve already laid the tracks and how their beady little eyes view us gun owners. We are to be “Detained, Disarmed, Resocialized and EXTERMINATED if we show signs of non-compliance. The documents are very straight forward. They’re doing it “for the women and children”, but they are “sympathetic” to the rest of us they are planning to slaughter. I don’t want to hear anymore nonsense about HOW they plan to do this to us. I’ve seen EXACTLY how they plan to do it. And it’s frightening. These vermin are ruthless in their efforts to disarm Americans. Without disarming us they can’t reach their little utopia they want so badly.

5) How will the 1968 Gun Ban come into play? We’ve ALREADY relinquished our gun rights. People just don’t know it yet.

6) How many UN troops will it take to disarm us? It won’t be our fellow Americans bashing down our doors. It’ll be serbian mercs, russian soldiers, islamic terrorists and other vermin of the world. People are sadly mistaken if they believe for one minute that this regime is going to trust such a large operation to American military members and police forces, who may or may not obey their commands to disarm us.

7) Will they just avoid all this mess and wait until we old folks die off, leaving nothing left but the glassy eyed IDIOTS being churned out by the millions into our society by the the public “educators”. When we die, there will be nobody left to fight them. How can they fight when they have no idea what all of this means? They won’t fight for our Constitution and Bill of Rights, because they’ve been taught to see them as “evil”, “racist” and “suppressive”. How can they fight when they know not what Freedom & Liberties actually MEAN?

I pray this happens in OUR life time, CR. If they wait, all future generations will live in a world as slaves to the unaccountable, untouchable, unelected, and evil terrorists squatting on UN gold plated thrones that WE have provided to them. How very shameful. This is how our generation will be remembered…. As those who put them in chains and took away their God given right to defend themselves from this tyranny.

We’re in for some very dark and dangerous days ahead, my Friends. This will not end well…. for ANYONE except the tyrants (including the CLINTONS) at the UN.

 

UPDATE: More on HOW they CAN and WILL enforce this trash: https://twg2a.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/more-on-how-the-un-gun-treaty-can-and-will-be-enforced-if-we-dont-un-sign-it/

***************************

Well, here we go, my Friends.  Looks like we’re going to war soon.  Let it happen in OUR day, while there are still some Americans left to fight.

We are about to see the most violent, bloodiest, and dangerous war this world has ever seen.  Right here in America.

LET IT BE THEIR BLOOD FLOWING LIKE RIVERS ACROSS THIS ONCE GREAT NATION.

They will NOT need to ratify this treasonous crap.  It’ll be shoved down our throats using the “Customary Law” loopholes.  Stop thinking it must be ratified.  IT WON’T.  When the United States of America signed the CFR, we agreed to bow down to those beasts in the interest of “global peace”.  The obama regime’s MASSIVE weapons trafficking to their terrorist pals certainly isn’t adhering to the “global peace” laws included in our commitment.

Lock and Load, people.  I suggest you get right with God today.  You’re going to need His help in the very dark and dangerous days ahead.

William Carr,
“…no nation which signs this [UN] Charter can justly maintain that any of its acts are its own business, or within its own domestic jurisdiction, if the security council says that these acts are a threat to the peace.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/25/US-signs-treaty-to-regulate-global-arms-trading

The punishment for treason is death

UN_Blue_Helmet

obama Regime To Sign UN Gun Grab… Here we go AGAIN.

September 24, 2013 2 comments

The punishment for treason is death

Here we go again…. this relentless threat goes on and on and on.

Apparently, john kerry intends to sign the UN gun grab tomorrow.  Yawn.  Where have we heard THIS before?

And before you whine “That can’t happen here! Treaties have to be ratified!”  Not any more.  Here’s just one of many ways in which they will try shoving this trash down our throats.  It’s called “CUSTOMARY LAW“. Read up and stop all your denial.  ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVEN’T READ THE IDDRS.

Hey kerry, et al…… Tell you what, you damned beasts….. If and WHEN you sign this crap, YOU and your entire cabal of fascist pigs will be responsible for starting the bloodiest, most violent war this world has ever seen.  YOUR blood will be flowing like rivers across our soil.

This shadow boxing is a bore.  Stop all the threats and GIVE IT YOUR BEST DAMNED SHOT.  We are waiting for you.

UN_Blue_Helmet

Final Version of Arms Trade Treaty Released; Civilian Disarmament on Track


TWG:  The whole “ratification” issue is just a ruse.  The Constitution can no longer protect us from those unaccountable, invisible, untouchable terrorists squatting on thrones at the UN.  They don’t need Senate approval anymore.  This WILL be imposed on us, using “Customary Law“.  They’re simply trying to take our Human & Civil Rights and our Second Amendment the *nice* way….. for now.  The UN OGIDDRS lays it all out for how, EXACTLY how, they plan to disarm, detain, resocialize and exterminate those of us who show signs of non-compliance.   The tracks were laid for the American people a LONG time ago.  This will not end well…… for ANYONE.

 

If those beasts want our guns, they’re going to have to steal them the hard way.   NFSE.

 

UN_Blue_Helmet

 

Source: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/14931-final-version-of-arms-trade-treaty-released-disarmament-of-civilians-on-track

 

NEW YORK — Just before noon on Wednesday, Australian ambassador and president of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty conference, Peter Woolcott, released his final version of the global gun control agreement.

Upon publication of the document, Woolcott informed delegates that they have 24 hours to confer with their respective governments and then report tomorrow for a final vote.

Apart from a couple of technical reviews by the drafting committee scheduled to be completed by 2:00 p.m., this is the last revision of the document, and Woolcott said nations must now “take it or leave it.”

For so many reasons, the United States delegation must choose the latter option. A few sections of the proposed agreement are provided below, each of which would require the federal government to unconstitutionally infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

To begin, the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty points to the United Nations Charter as the source of guiding principles upon which the agreement is based. Citizens of the United States, however, recognize God as the source of all rights they enjoy. Not even the Constitution claims to be the giver of rights; it is merely the protector of them.

The ultimate American statement on the issue of the provenance of rights was written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The UN would see the Declaration of Independence replaced by the Declaration of Human Rights and would have the Creator replaced with government as the source of rights.

Another paragraph of the Arms Trade Treaty’s preamble grants the United Nations the power to authorize “end users” and “end use” of conventional arms.

Where in the Constitution is an unelected and unaccountable body of international bureaucrats given the right to determine who is or is not authorized to buy, sell, or trade weapons?

Next, the Arms Trade Treaty preamble reaffirms the “sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms.” The federal government has no right whatsoever to regulate or control conventional arms. While the governments of the 50 states of the United States may exercise such control as part of their police power, the Second Amendment explicitly forbids the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Another provision declares “that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence.”

While on its face potentially true, during the 20th century, hundreds of millions of women and children were killed in wars started by the governments of the world. These conflicts employed weapons not in the hands of civilians, but under the control of “legitimate regimes.”

Given that the Arms Trade Treaty specifically grants the UN and “state parties” exclusive control over the manufacture, purchase, possession, sale, trade, and transfer of weapons of every size — from handgun to intercontinental missile — how can it claim to be the best hope of protecting women and children from armed conflict? In fact, in nearly every case of mass killings by government, the people targeted were first disarmed, leaving all weapons in the hands of government, preventing the people from resisting the march of tyranny.

Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer the following items is regulated by the terms of the treaty:

(a) Battle tanks;

(b) Armoured [sic] combat vehicles;

(c) Large-calibre [sic] artillery systems;

(d) Combat aircraft;

(e) Attack helicopters;

(f) Warships;

(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and

(h) Small arms and light weapons.

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.

As the representative of one pro-gun control organization told this reporter last week, “Guns without bullets are no deadlier than baseball bats.” The UN plans to eventually rid the world of privately owned weapons; failing to do that, however, they will prevent the purchase (or reloading) of ammunition.

Reports around the country reveal that shortages of ammunition are already leaving many without rounds to use in their lawfully owned firearms.

Article 4 rounds out the regulations, placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme, as well.

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.”

Should the U.S. delegation vote in favor of this treaty (and President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have both signaled that they should), the federal government will be obligated to begin compiling a list of who owns, buys, sells, trades, or transfers any of the weapons included in the list provided above, as well as the ammunition, parts, and components of those weapons.

After creating this database, the federal government will be required under the provisions of Article 5(4) of the Arms Trade Treaty to “provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.”

That’s right. The UN demands that the list of gun and ammo owners not only be in the hands of our own government, but be sent to foreign regimes, as well.

Americans are right to recognize this registry as the first step toward confiscation.

Without such a registry, it would be impossible to monitor weapon transfers effectively because governments can’t track weapons exchanges and transfers unless they know who has them to begin with.

Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.

In very clear terms, the Arms Trade Treaty will require that the federal government of the United States force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens will be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.

Section 4 of Article 12 requires that the list be kept for at least 10 years.

Finally, the agreement instructs governments to take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty. If they can’t seem to get it done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”

The conference will reconvene at UN headquarters tomorrow morning. Delegations will then vote on the treaty and report to their home governments. The New American will report from the scene of this historic event.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and is currently on assignment in New York to cover the Arms Trade Treaty conference. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

Related articles:

Gun Control Group Calls for Strict Control of Arms, Ammo in UN Treaty

“Bizarre Interpretation of Second Amendment” is Obstacle to UN Gun Grab

Senate Votes to Keep U.S. Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty

UN Arms Trade Treaty: National Lists of Gun Owners; Ammunition Regulation

UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms

UN Arms Trade Conference Begins, Sec. General Calls for “Robust” Treaty

Source: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/14931-final-version-of-arms-trade-treaty-released-disarmament-of-civilians-on-track

 

Senate Roll Call Votes On Entering The UN Arms Trade Treaty. SIX VOTES FROM LOSING

March 25, 2013 3 comments

TWG:  SIX VOTES FROM LOSING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND RELINQUISHING OUR GUNS TO THE UN.   SIX VOTES.   SIX VOTES.  SIX VOTES….  This once great nation is so screwed.  Take names and keep track of these TRAITORS who voted to steal our Second Amendment Rights.   SIX DAMNED VOTES, PEOPLE!   HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS BETRAYAL!  NEVER FORGET WHO AND WHAT IS DOING THIS TO US AND MAKE THEM PAY.

And Senator Max Baucus, CLEAR YOUR DAMNED DESK, YOU LYING, CONIVING TRAITOR.

HERE’S A LIST OF TODAY’S TRAITORS. KEEP TRACK OF THIS SLITHERING PIT OF VIPERS.

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 139 )
Vote Number: 91 Vote Date: March 23, 2013, 04:30 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Vote Counts: YEAs 53
NAYs 46
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cowan (D-MA), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —53
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting – 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Flake (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Udall (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Coons (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Nay Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Hirono (D-HI), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea King (I-ME), Nay
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Cowan (D-MA), Nay Warren (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Fischer (R-NE), Yea Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Ayotte (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Heinrich (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Nay
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Yea Scott (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Kaine (D-VA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Enviro-Eugenicists Announce Mass Die-Off To Depopulate The World

March 17, 2013 1 comment

Here’s another jaw-dropping report on “The Big Die Off” scientists claiming that murdering mass populations is exactly what they intend to do to us.   Sad to know that the majority of people in this Nation haven’t a clue what “Eugenics” means, who (AND WHAT)  obama appointed as his “Science & Technology” Czar and just how deep this evil slithers.  It’s so outrageous, diabolical and incomprehensible that most people simply will not believe it.  Try to explain it to them and you will be labeled some sort of lunatic.

Here it is, for all to see….. whether they believe it or not: http://explosivereports.com/2013/03/15/enviro-eugenicists-announce-mass-die-off/

I want to know what that E-V-I-L eugenics freak and Ehrlich prodigy, Czar John Holdren, has been cooking up for us in the dark crevices of our White House. With NO Science degree, John Holdren is obama’s “Science and Technology” Czar. Holdren co-wrote a book in 1977, Ecoscience, with Paul and Ann Ehrlich, the eugenics gurus. Population control, a book that mused openly about mass sterilizations, forced abortions, putting sterilants in the water to control the population. It’s the fact that his ideological mentors, including one of the top international eugenics members most renowned, again, for promoting these same ideas of social engineering through the guise of “science” that basically amounts to eugenics and taking away babies from “undesirables”. He was paying homage to this mentor as recently as two years ago at one of the most prominent science gatherings of the country, the AAAS gathering, and there has been little, if any public questioning about it.

Some of obama’s czars have things that are so frightening in their past that no American would approve– if these guys were being appointed by Republicans, the left would be on fire with this. They’d be calling for their treason trials and publicly open town square lynching.

Apparently not only is he in favor of zero population growth but also zero economic growth. He wanted a zero GDP, and here’s one of the quotes in the book that he co-wrote, Ecoscience:

“…. it is now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever. Why should it? Why should we not strive for zero economic growth as well as zero population growth.” Is there any question in your mind why the obama regime has been so busy systematically decimating all production and manufacturing in our Nation?

Czar John Holdren’s mentor, Harrison Brown, saw the world population as ”a pulsating mass of maggots”. Holdren himself describes the world population as “useless eaters”.

In a section on “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. His concern? “The problem with that method is GETTING THE PEOPLE TO DRINK IT.”

Here’s a few excerpts:

“The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. …

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.”

“To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. …

“…this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.”

Later, he concludes, “Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.”

“To date, (1977) there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Czar Holdren’s view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given his current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. Keep in mind that this book (Ecoscience) was written in 1977.]

I’d sure like to know what that evil beasts has been cooking up for the American people since he took the throne anointed him by the obama regime. Out of all the treasonists, trolls, demons and terrorists slithering about obama’s regime, Czar Holdren is the only one that truly gives me nightmares.

holdren

Agenda 21 Target: MONTANA, Via SB 321

February 18, 2013 Leave a comment

TWG: Take a look at what Montana’s commies have come up with.  The Montana Legislature is currently in session and they’re attempting to shove this fascist trash down our throats.   Be sure to read the Montana Code Annotated to see how the two are being combined.

This is the kind of crap Czar Cass Sustein and Czar John Holdren have engineered for us.  The sad part is that they’ve successfully brainwashed half this nation into begging for their own demise.  Thank the so-called “educators”.

Too bad the glassy eyed idiots aren’t  shoveling this shit on Congress and the White House.

 

READ MONTANA SB 321: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billpdf/SB0321.pdf

.

Be sure to read through Montana Annotated Code 75-1-103

 

 

Montana Code Annotated 2011Clickable Image

75-1-103. Policy. (1) The legislature, recognizing the profound impact of human activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances, recognizing the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and human development, and further recognizing that governmental regulation may unnecessarily restrict the use and enjoyment of private property, declares that it is the continuing policy of the state of Montana, in cooperation with the federal government, local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which humans and nature can coexist in productive harmony, to recognize the right to use and enjoy private property free of undue government regulation, and to fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Montanans.
(2) In order to carry out the policy set forth in parts 1 through 3, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Montana to use all practicable means consistent with other essential considerations of state policy to improve and coordinate state plans, functions, programs, and resources so that the state may:
(a) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
(b) ensure for all Montanans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(c) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(d) protect the right to use and enjoy private property free of undue government regulation;
(e) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our unique heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
(f) achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
(g) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
(3) The legislature recognizes that each person is entitled to a healthful environment, that each person is entitled to use and enjoy that person’s private property free of undue government regulation, that each person has the right to pursue life’s basic necessities, and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. The implementation of these rights requires the balancing of the competing interests associated with the rights by the legislature in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6503; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 352, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 361, L. 2003.

 

 

The pope, Who Served As A Member of Hitlers Youth Army, Vomits Anti-Western Stance To The Masses

January 2, 2013 1 comment

TWG: OH LOOKY! The pope who served as a member of hitler’s youth army , and the religious group that teamed up with hitler and islam during WWII, is vomiting his anti-Capitalism beliefs to the “masses” (pun not intended).  islamics, communists, nazis, socialists, marxists, democrats and all the rest of the fascist PIGS…… ALL SHARING THEIR COMMON HATRED OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.   America, you are FINISHED.  Freedom, you are FINISHED.  Liberty, FINISHED.    Just stick that damned fork in us already. We are DONE.

popehitleryouthcartoon

Pope’s new year address deplores rampant capitalism

Pope Benedict XVI in Vatican, 1 Jan 13
The Pope blessed the gospel during Mass in St Peter’s Basilica

Pope Benedict XVI has condemned “unregulated capitalism” for contributing to world tension, in a new year address to worshippers.

The Pope also thanked the world’s peacemakers and said humanity had “an innate vocation for peace”.

The Roman Catholic Church leader spoke at a Mass in the Vatican, then greeted a crowd outside St Peter’s Basilica.

He deplored “hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor”.

Those “hotbeds” also grew out of “the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism”, as well as “various forms of terrorism and crime”, he said…..(Con’)

CONTINUE READING: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20882894

hitlerandthepope

popeisevil

popehitleryouth

nazipropagandaforislam

popehitlerandnazis

popeisanazi

obama’s Crocodile Tears and Globalist Gun Grabbing

December 16, 2012 4 comments

TWG: It’s no secret that I don’t like Alex Jones, but he’s exactly right in this video.  They WILL try to steal our firearms and decimate our Second Amendment, and they’re creating these crisis to do it.  ‘The ends justify the means” is their motto, and they don’t give one damn how many innocent little children they slaughter in order to achieve their globalist utopian wet dreams.

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,547 other followers

%d bloggers like this: