Standing Guard: The First Step In Trampling Our Rights
Saturday, January 23, 2010
With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's enthusiastic embrace
of a "binding" United Nations treaty on global control of
international trade in firearms and ammunition, the Obama
administration has officially become an aggressive participant in
what international gun-ban groups have hailed as a "first step" in
their march on our sovereignty and ultimately on private ownership
of firearms in every nation.
In announcing the radical shift in U.S. policy, Clinton
proclaimed, "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a
strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible,
legally binding standards for the international transfer of
In her terse statement, Clinton did not mention the Second
Amendment or U.S. sovereignty. Her silence on those seminal
elements of our freedom stands in stark contrast to the audacious
defense of American liberty by President George W. Bush under
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Affairs John Bolton.
"The administration is
trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about
international arms trade between nation states, but there's no
doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the real agenda
here is domestic firearms control."
Bolton stunned the United Nations' gun-ban machine in July 2001
by announcing fundamental opposition to any binding global civil
disarmament treaty, proclaiming, "We do not support measures that
prohibit civilian possession of small arms. . . .The United States
will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures
abrogating the constitutional right to bear arms."
Bolton's bold presence at that key U.N. gun-ban conference
continued with his role as U.S. ambassador to the U.N.--giving
Americans eight years of safety from global attacks on our Second
The world gun-ban axis, created and funded by globalist
billionaire George Soros, was outraged. But they were beaten. For
eight years the U.N. and Soros' International Action Network on
Small Arms (IANSA) were held at bay by the Bush administration's
But with the election of Barack Obama and his appointment of
Hillary Clinton, the Bush/Bolton doctrine to protect American
President Obama's political mantra of "hope and change" has
morphed into a very real threat. Obama's deep curtsy to
international arms control has given "hope" to the international
gun-ban crowd that they will prevail.
Rebecca Peters, George Soros' protege on the global gun-ban
stage, is gleeful. On the IANSA website she proclaims: "Around the
world people are suffering because the legal gun market is poorly
regulated, allowing these deadly weapons to be misused, whether by
police, criminals, terrorists or in the home. Governments must now
implement these global principles in order to protect their
citizens from the flood of guns.
"The principles . . . prohibit inter-national transfers where
the arms are likely to be used in serious human rights
"This is also the focus of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). . .
Details of the Obama/Clinton- endorsed treaty--which has not yet
been finalized--will surely include international monitoring and
control of every aspect of firearm commerce and ownership in the
Ambassador Bolton recently explained in an NRA interview, "The
administration is trying to act as though this is really just a
treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but
there's no doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the
real agenda here is domestic firearms control.
"Many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very
much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on
the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is
right at the top of their agenda."
Literally all of the international gun confiscation groups couch
their renewed U.N. treaty efforts in terms of what they call "human
rights." But in the newspeak lexicon of the U.N., "human rights"
doesn't mean the right to self-defense as we know it.
With the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Heller decision upholding
the Second Amendment and declaring the District of Columbia's ban
on armed self-defense in the home unconstitutional, Americans are
now acutely aware of this essential individual human right.
Armed self-defense by individual Americans is equally the heart
of the Constitutional challenge to Chicago's gun-ban law now
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court--a landmark case with
essential support from the NRA among a broad coalition of Second
But armed self-defense by private citizens--of any nation--is
specifically not a "human right" under the U.N. charter.
Try this from a key July 2007 report to the U.N.'s Human Rights
Council entitled, "Specific Human Rights Issues--Prevention of
human rights violations committed with small arms and light
weapons." The IANSA-inspired official U.N. report--shamefully
written by an American professor, Barbara Frey, director of the
Human Rights Program in the College of Liberal Arts at the
University of Minnesota--argues: "Self-defence is sometimes
designated as a 'right.' There is inadequate legal support for such
an interpretation. . . . No international human right of
self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of
international law: treaties, customary law or general principles. .
. . International law does not support an international legal
obligation requiring States to permit access to a gun for
In fact, under the United Nations' charter the report declares,
"The right of self-defence in international law is not directed
toward the preservation of lives of individuals . . . it is
concerned with the preservation of the State."
That is stunning. So there you have it. This is the heart, the
essence of the United Nations attack on our Second Amendment and
No matter what the gun-ban crowd says, any U.N. arms treaty
boils down to one thing: The power of the American people--of
individuals--is crushed by the power of the international
Each of us must work to stop this bowing and scraping by the
Obama administration to those evil principles.
Write, call, e-mail and meet with your elected representatives
to deliver a simple message: No U.N. arms treaty--not under any
circumstance or for any reason--not now, not ever! "The
administration is trying to act as though this is really just a
treaty about international trade between nations, but there's no
doubt ... that the real agenda here is domestic firearms