March 30th, 2014

U.S.-EU Statement Calls For Enforcement Of UN Arms Treaty


ObamaUN

This article was written by Joe A. Wolverton II and originally published at The New American

At the conclusion of the U.S.-EU Summit held this week in Brussels, President Obama and his European colleagues released a joint statement reaffirming their common commitment to civilian disarmament as mandated in the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

While globalist and establishment media reports focus on the summit’s attention to the events in Crimea, there is a provision at the end of the statement that is of much greater concern to Americans aware of the crescendo of calls for restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Paragraph 33 of the declaration released on March 26 states: “We reaffirm our joint commitments on non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control.”

Among other agreements, President Obama, in the name of the United States, joined with the gathered heads of state in promising: “We will also work together to promote the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty in 2014.”

Despite significant congressional opposition to the United Nation’s attempt to confiscate privately owned weapons and ammunition, President Obama quietly signed his name to a document that if carried out, would amount to nothing less than the de facto repeal of the Second Amendment.

In order to appreciate the seriousness of the the Arms Trade Treaty’s threat to the God-given right to keep and bear arms and to the constitutional protection of that right, details of the plan should be understood.

This author attended the negotiations at UN headquarters in Manhattan where the ATT was hammered out, and I found that the ATT is so offensive to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms, it is an understatement to call it unconstitutional. As The New American has reported, several provisions of this treaty significantly diminish the scope of this basic right.

First, the Arms Trade Treaty grants a monopoly over all weaponry in the hands of the very entity (government) responsible for over 300 million murders in the 20th century.

Furthermore, the treaty leaves private citizens powerless to oppose future slaughters.

One uncomfortable fact of armed violence ignored by the UN in its pro-disarmament propaganda is that all the murders committed by all the serial killers in history don’t amount to a fraction of the brutal killings committed by “authorized state parties” using the very weapons over which they will exercise absolute control under the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty.

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.”

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, ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by the United States would require that the U.S. government force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens would be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.

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

Finally, the agreement demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this 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.”

In fact, a “voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens.

While President Obama has kept mostly mum lately on the ATT, especially in the face of such strident congressional opposition, the European Union has come right out and called for the enactment of the globalist gun grab.

On February 5, the European Parliament voted to authorize EU countries to ratify the ATT.

In a less-than-enthusiastic press release, the European Parliament declared that the Arms Trade Treaty “wouldn’t necessarily result in the reduction of arms production, but it should stop arms getting into the hands of terrorists and should stop arms flooding into areas that are unstable.”

That’s sounds troubling. Given the proclivity of regimes to label dissenters as “terrorists” and to nominate the United States as a battlefield in the global “War on Terror,” however, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are most certainly under attack in the form of this globalist gun grab masquerading as a peace treaty.

David Martin, a British member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats who helped draft the recommendation for EU member ratification of the ATT, admitted that the aim of the treaty is control of firearms. “There are weaknesses in the treaty, but it’s nevertheless a major step forward. This is the first time that conventional weapons have been put under any sort of control at all,” Martin said in an interview with the EU press.

Statements such as this are an admission against the interest of the perpetuation of the right to keep and bear arms, particularly in light of the president’s co-signing of the the U.S.-EU summit joint statement that specifically calls for gun control.

Perhaps President Obama, the self-professed former constitutional law professor, has forgotten the text of the Second Amendment, particularly the phrase “shall not infringe.”

Fortunately, as reported above, a slim majority of senators remain rock-ribbed in their refusal to ratify the ATT.

For now, 50 senators are standing together to protect the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and have taken pen in hand to let the president know how they feel about his plan to rob their constituents of one of their most basic rights.

In a letter addressed to President Obama, the senators enumerated six reasons the president should refuse to present the ATT to the Senate for ratification. Among the objections raised by the senatorial signatories is the ambiguity of the treaty, as well as the grant to “foreign sources of authority” the power to “impose judgment or control on the U.S.”

On the House side, a coalition of 180 members of Congress sent a letter to the president reaffirming their opposition to the implementation of the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty.

While it is not remarkable that Barack Obama supports the seizure of guns and ammunition from law-abiding Americans, the fact that only half of the U.S. Senate has come out in defense of the Second Amendment is noteworthy and should be remembered by citizens who understand that a disarmed population is a slave population.

In light of the joint statement sanctioning government control of gun ownership, it seems that the “strong partnership” between the European Union and the United States might be the wedge President Obama uses to separate Americans from their firearms and their freedom.




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

11 Responses to “U.S.-EU Statement Calls For Enforcement Of UN Arms Treaty”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    flinter Says:

    Here in NH, Our own senator Jean Shaheen voted in favor of the UN arms trade treaty. I consider her to be a traitor. The other oathkeepers here disagree as they gave me a tougne lashing for saying so.

    Kinda makes me wonder if I want to be a part of the NH chapter.

  2. 2
    dan Says:

    If any oath keeper sides with the UN….they are NOT ‘friendlies’ and will be ’sighted’ as such

  3. 3
    A Patriot Says:

    Flinter… I’ll say so!

  4. 4
    Chris Says:

    Molon Labe!!!!!!!!

  5. 5
    Cal Says:

    “President Obama, in the name of the United States, joined with the gathered heads of state in promising: “We will also work together to promote the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty in 2014.”

    First obama (deliberate non cap) is not lawfully the US President. He was NEVER a lawful
    candidate even if you ignore the faked BC, etc. If they cannot meet the requirements – only 3 of them – to be a US President they cannot be a candidate. Doesn’t matter how many votes, if he got every vote – which he didn’t, at least not lawful ones. WE have LAWFUL REQUIREMENTS OF EVERY PERSON DESIRING TO BE THE US PRESIDENT and running as a candidate. He wasn’t “vetted”:

    The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include language stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form? Not sure if you can still find it, but I do have it somewhere on another computer HD as do many others.

    South Bend, Indiana JURY (that is “We the people in action folks)found that election fraud put BOTH President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.

    So you see he has NEVER been our US President. But he has committed arms trafficking, mass murder, impersonation of a US President – not the first but at least we can prosecute this one and the rest still living for election fraud, etc – First Degree murder, TREASON against the United States of American and her people, theft, ID theft, etc.

    “Arms Trade Treaty… ”

    ALL – that means every single one – must be in Pursuance of the US Constitution. PERIOD!!! He was never given the power – even if he was not an imposter US president – to go against the US Constitution. That is TREASON giving ANY “authority” over the US or the US military to a foreign entity or nation. It is just treason, not a law here.

    US Constitution, Article VI: “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) – dissent by Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war: No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

    In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: “Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.”

    Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

    United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

    President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey like to think they have the power to put us under UN power, they legally (under OUR laws, and those are the only laws that matter to us here) we are NOT under the UN, we are a free and independent nation, a constitutional republic under the Constitution of the United States. They had better be arrested, impeached (politicians), held for prosecution.

    Over his years in office, he and his administration has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, the United States of America.
    The Pentagon (traitor Gen. Martin Dempsey) & traitor POTUS Obama along with the traitor US. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have been trying to declare a Coup D’etat (takeover by a foreign entity, person, or nation) on our Constitutional government by giving the United Nations “Supreme Authority” over the US.

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have “supreme authority” over the actions of the United States military (Notice our military is still called the United States military, not the UN military, and that it is still made up of American citizens,  plus we Americans still pay their salary).

    During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes NOT from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
    If their “authority” comes from UN and NATO, then they have NO authority in the USA. The only “power or authority they have in the United States is what is given to them by our legitimate government under the US Constitution. Their treasonous acts and words are on video, and there is no longer any excuse for them to have not been arrested.

    On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows: The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.

    - The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), and can include criminal/civil actions.
    It has invited considerable debate, but it is generally read to mean both indictable offenses and other serious noncriminal misconduct. The latter has included corruption, dereliction of constitutional duty, and violation of limitations on the power of an office.
    Actions he committed against our laws REQUIRE PROSECUTION.

    – “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded: “Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office”

    - Is a domestic enemy of the USA (impeachable and prosecutable): “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights. (Used to be the FBI definition back when for that short time the FBI was an USA federal law enforcement agency.)

    - That he is, and has been; committing “conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power”.

    - That he lied deliberately and knowingly to the American public (Clinton Impeachment)

    - Abused the power allowed the executive branch by the US Constitution

    - Has given the United Nations (foreign entity) power over USA (impeachable, and as traitor prosecutable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder)

    - Gave himself assassination powers. First Degree murder for him and ALL involved in any way.

    - Committed Perjury many times, All federal governmental elected or hired are under oath (impeachable and prosecutable): “lying under oath about a material matter”, “violation of an oath”.

    - Maladministration: “A political term which describes the actions of a government body which can be seen as causing an injustice”,” Situation where the individual or group in charge is unjust, dishonest, or ineffective in their leadership; frequently used to describe corrupt behavior by any public official.

    The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:
    Delay
    Incorrect action or failure to take any action
    Failure to follow procedures or the law
    Failure to provide information
    Inadequate record-keeping
    Failure to investigate
    Failure to reply
    Misleading or inaccurate statements
    Inadequate liaison
    Inadequate consultation
    Broken promises

    - “Bound” – “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

    - Treason – “The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court”.

    - “Misapplication”: “To administer or manage inefficiently or dishonestly “, “A wrong application”. “Wrong, often corrupt use: abuse, misappropriation, mishandling, misuse, perversion”

    - Solemn: “marked by the observance of established form or ceremony”, “legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

  6. 6
    Cal Says:

    Isn’t it time for charges to be made against the traitors of the USA in the open so that the people can see exactly what is going on?

    If not now, when and why not?

  7. 7
    Linda Says:

    Cal…..WOW you really covered ALL the bases. It really makes a person wonder why has NOTHING been done. I think we’ve been sold out!! :( very scary times ahead

  8. 8
    Cal Says:

    Linda,
    We were “sold out” long ago. Worse is that we allowed this to happen because it was easier to go along. You see, it was OUR constitutional duty to stop all this as the Militia of the several states. But the most damage done to our way of life, our government was when WE LET them discontinue the Militia of the several states BECAUSE they (we) are the ones constitutionally assigned the duties of:

    - Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
    - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation. Sheriffs are lawful because they are elected by the people and supposed to represent, defend, and protect them while other governmental “law” enforcements – federal and state were never intended to have the peoples interest at heart – and as you can see today it did not take long for them to be morphed into the “police state” of dictators and tyrants.

    It did not take long for them to be turned into “them against us” mentality. They even are allowed to LIE as a matter of policy which of course makes people distrust them more. think about it, they complain that people trying to defend their OWN & families lives – yes even crooks lie and cops throw a fit. But the reason they (LEOS) lie is more understandable then “policy”. (Give me a break.) It made their job easier, as did all the warrantless stuff they were suddenly allowed to do, and corrupt judges who signed blank warrants were revered not arrested so that meant that they were also picking and choosing who to arrest, etc.

    The forefathers wouldn’t put the militia under federal control as there was always a chance that those in office would turn traitorous against the people. They already had learned, and history taught – then and now, that people in places of power could not be trusted. So they broke it up; the people ARE the militia and would keep the best interests of the people themselves at the forefront of all decisions made. Then they assigned the duty of organizing, arming, and disciplining each state’s militia to the federal congress; and to each state the appointment of their Militia’s officers and their training; all under Article I, Section. 8, Clause 16:

    Stalin said this for a reason:
    ”The United States should get rid of its militias”. Joseph Stalin, 1933

    That is because as long as “We the People” as the Militia of the several states, trained and armed, knowledgeable in battle and watchful of our politicians, still willing to arrest/charge/prosecute those working against our government, not allow “whistleblowers” to be incarcerated/killed/”disappeared for bringing to the light the CRIMES committed by our governments and military, etc we could not be taken over from within – not as easily.

    Then go on to veterans and ex LEO’s who are constitutional or might become constitutional with knowledge, THEY are our organized Militia of the several states. They are charged with the constitutional duties that all state Militia are:

    - Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
    - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    Plus to educate and train the rest of us to get us “up to speed”. Is it any wonder that they are on the terrorist watch list, are being arrested, murdered, locked up, put in mental hospitals, denied their natural rights, etc .

    “Politicians brought the Nazis to power and started the war. They are the ones who brought about these disgusting crimes.” Karl Doenitz, German admiral and would-be fuehrer after Hitler

  9. 9
    Robert J. Simmons Says:

    Cal, I completely agree that it is way past time for charges of treason and subversion to be filed. To wait any longer will only suffice to add more transgressions and transgressors to the list of crimes against the Constitution.

  10. 10
    bob mc auley Says:

    since when does some un treaty supercede the constitution. not gonna happen

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148