Wednesday, July 25, 2012

US Sovereignty in Jeopardy -- Agenda 21 Round 2



Agenda 21. A year ago, the name for the series of international treaties sounded like some strange conspiracy theory name to me. Like many of you, my brain clicked and likened Agenda 21 to Area 51.

However, Agenda 21 isn't some alien plot to take over the world. It is a collection of international treaties that grant the UN powers to govern over sovereign nations. Many of the provisions will assist third-world countries with steep economic and social problems. The total package is over 300 pages long (slightly larger than 1/10th the length of the PPACA AKA Obamacare law) and contains 40 chapters. Along with each are several provisions for local an global implementation.

What they mean to the US is that our country, under this treaty, will give up all we have worked to achieve since 1775. Provisions among the treaties give the UN taxation powers over the US. Another treaty among the collective gives the UN the power to dictate what our children will be allowed to learn in schools.

The Agenda 21 treaties are a subject of hot debate in the Senate halls. On the nightly news, you hear crickets about them. If you follow various committee meetings, statements, and other actions taken by the Senate and House, however, you will discover deeply entrenched lines on both sides of the issues. Several Senators, including John Kyl from Arizona, have signed agreements refusing to ratify any of the Agenda 21 treaties. 

One of the treaties among the bunch is the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). That treaty does several things. It restricts where US sovereign waters end and international seas start. They place our flagged vessels that are within international waters under UN laws instead of within other treaties we have already made with sovereign nations. They will restrict what products are allowed to be carted by ocean-going vessels. It also restricts how our Navy can respond to any threats to our flagged carriers that might be attacked on the seas. In other words, it keeps us from using our own Navy to protect and defend our own citizens.

Another of the treaties is the Small Arms Treaty, also called the ATT treaty. This treaty restricts the number of rifle and handguns a citizen can own, and what calibers. It also restricts the number of rounds of ammunition a magazine can hold. In addition to restricting the number of weapons a citizen can own, it restricts the total number of rounds of ammunition a citizen can keep for each. In other words, this treaty is an attempt to circumvent and destroy our Second Amendment through the use of international law. How? Any treaty ratified by the Senate carries the weight of a passed and signed piece of domestic legislation.

That leaves one question that pings in the brains of many Americans -- What about the Second Amendment? Well, the trick about the treaty is that congress is not passing any law infringing upon our rights to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). It is ratifying an international treaty. So, it is a constitutional gray area. In effect, if ratified, it will go into effect. The outcome of any US Supreme Court opinion cannot be determined. It may be held as constitutional.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton likes this treaty. It goes further than her assault weapon ban did when her husband was president. It will be more restrictive than California's ban against any weapon that can take larger than a 10 round magazine. In effect, it will disarm Americans. Those few allowed to keep their weapons will have to register them locally, federally, and internationally.

The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs sees all small arms, including a .22cal target rifle used for shooting competitions, as one of the largest threats to world security. Of course, many member nations of the UN do not recognize individual property rights. So it follows, logically, that they do not subscribe to the need for these arms for an individual to protect one's life, liberty. or property from criminals. In addition, they don't recognize a need for these arms to defend one's life, liberty, or property from tyrants and oppressive governments. They think that the governments, even the most tyrannical, are there to protect the people and know what is best for them.

In order to punctuate the role tyrants are playing in this international treaty, one of the 14 officiating nations that is in charge of the conference in New York City is Iran. Yes, that Iran. The Iran who is building nuclear weapons. The Iran who supports Al Q'aeda, Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunna terrorists in Iraq and Yemen. The Iran who supports Hizb'allah terrorists in Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon. The Iran who murders and jails those who have dissenting political opinions. Obviously, Iran doesn't want its average citizens to be armed and able to defend themselves.

That is against the very core beliefs our country was founded upon. It goes against the very fabric of what makes our country great. We prosper because of individual property rights, individuals' rights to life, and the freedom to do with our lives and possessions what we wish so long as we do not infringe upon those rights of others.

The UN Conference that is plotting and planning to take away those rights is meeting right now, in New York City. The conference concludes on July 27th.  Here is US Ambassador to the UN Donald Mahley's statement. Mahley made two major points of contention about the conference and the treaty. The first is that Iran was named as one of the senior officiating countries for the conference and the treaty. Iran still funds and supplies Hizb'allah and the Abu Nidal Organization (responsible for the 1979-1980 hostage crisis). Mahley also expressed concerns about the necessity to strengthen and facilitate legitimate arms trade as well as bolstering individual rights to self-defense. 

Among the US Senators expressing serious reservations about the ATT is Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. Upon discovering that Iran will be among the countries dictating the provisions and enforcement of the ATT, among other Agenda 21 treaties, the Senator stated the following.

"I have expressed my concern about the threat to the United States second amendment, our constitutional right to bear arms, and my concern over the U.N. subordinating U.S. law to itself. But I have never ever been as concerned as I am today to find out that Iran has been named, without objection, as a member of the conference that will lead this debate. 

"Iran has been seeking a position on this U.N. conference on small arms and arms trade treaty agreement for some time. That has been known. 
 
"This is the same Iran the U.N. has sanctioned four times in the last 3 years for its progress on its nuclear arms program and the enrichment of nuclear material. It is the same Iran that as recently as last week the U.N. sent its former chief head president to try to negotiate a settlement on the horrible things that happened in Syria. This is the same Iran that is accused of shipping arms to Syria and to the Asad regime, which has resulted in the killing of over 17,000 Syrians in the last year.
How in anybody's right mind could they allow a country that is in the process of doing that and that has been sanctioned four times by the U.N. to ascend to a position to negotiate a conference on a treaty on small arms on behalf of the U.N.?"

 

You see and hear little about the Agenda 21 treaties such as the LOST and the ATT in the mainstream media. Why? It appears they hope your rights are stolen through ratification of these treaties with little notice until it is too late. They hope that such will be just a scant footnote in their skewed versions of historical texts 10 years from now. They want to control the information, the facts you are allowed to know, therefore controlling what you think. 


Despite what many may think, in the US, it is not the job of police to protect and safeguard your life, your family's lives, or your property. It is their job to pursue anyone who HAS infringed upon them and broken laws. It is not their job to stop people who are violating them. If you want to protect your life, your family, and your property, then it is up to you to do so. The US Supreme Court has made that same ruling more than once. Ratifying the ATT Small Arms Treaty with the UN will take away your basic right of self-defense. That defense is against criminals, murderers, and tyrants.


Why would left-leaning socialists wish to support such an idea? Simple, to gain power. First, Hitler, Lenin, etc. took over the media. Next they too over the schools. The third step was to disarm the people while claiming they would protect them. What was their next step? Well, Hitler ordered the systematic murders of over 11 million people. It should be more than obvious that their goal is to leave law-abiding citizens defenseless when the hordes of Bolsheviks and the SS start knocking down your doors, confiscating your property, and taking your kids off to re-education camps. You may find this a slight exaggeration. I know many progressives who honestly believe such things "would never happen here". I know others who believe it would be a good thing if such DID happen here. The only reasons such wouldn't happen here is because enough people would stand up against such. However, these days, there are too many sheep that would follow the scapegoat to the slaughter. In 1930s Germany, many people thought "That could never happen here". In 1919 in the newly established USSR, many thought "that may happen under the Czar, but it won't happen here, now". Well, it happened.

Write your Senators. If you live in Texas, while Dewhurst and Cruz battle for the nomination this week, put the subject before them. (Cruz has already publicly stated he will not vote in favor of ratifying ANY of the Agenda 21 treaties). Put the question before ALL candidates. Hold them accountable. Let them know that the Agenda 21 treaties are evil and against everything this country stands for. Let them know that voting in favor of ratifying them is, in effect, violating their oaths of office to support the US Constitution against all enemies. In effect, supporting these treaties or ratifying them is equivocated to treason.

To those who support the ATT Small Arms Treaty, I say two words borrowed from the Spartans:  "Molon Labe".  They can count my ammunition as they inventory it, one round at a time, in rapid succession, sent out most expeditiously.