Showing posts with label united nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label united nations. Show all posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On The United Nations Veto.
Secret Squirrel's attention has been recently drawn to the ridiculous and improper United Nations veto, as one was presently cast by The United States of America, in efforts to see to it that a free nation, a new nation, the nation of a free Palestine coming about, in and after the very self-same fashion that Israel came about.Squirrel will not comment here on that putrescent and sad fact, that of the United States casting a veto preventing the nation of Palestine coming in to being, but rather here will comment on the United Nations veto itself.
Veto power circumvents the power and rule of the majority and subjects to nations to the slavery and idiocy, of the few, or given, one of the few at any given time.It subjects the majority to the will of a minority,it binds, it enslaves.It removes rights, and freedoms.The putrescence of the veto, is in the same fashion as the presentation of The Noble Peace Prize, to war mongers at any given time.It is subjectively imprisoning in its effects. It enforces the will of the one,over the will of the many, the belief of the one, over the belief of the many,Veto Power, we need to eliminate it. This was created more than half a century ago.Ambassador Charles W. Yost cast the first U.S. veto in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly on resolutions criticizing Israel; since 2002 the Negroponte doctrine has been applied for the use of a veto on resolutions relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements.and used mostly by the US to veto resolutions involving Israel starting in the 1970's, "(and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel)".
Regard the comments here found at..
http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/394
Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.
The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right
Member States met on 16 and 17 March,2009 to discuss the veto in the second of five meetings devoted to different substantive issues connected to Security Council reform.The Philippines noted that “...even in the face of this extreme difficulty to remove the veto power, we may yet consider the need to curtail its exercise or use. There is a big chance for that,” ambassador Hilario G. Davide pointed out. To address this issue, the ambassador not only supported disallowing or denying the use of the veto power in certain grave cases, he also reiterated a Philippine proposal for a veto to be set aside or overturned by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Security Council itself.Reportedly, almost half of all Member States took the floor during the almost two-day long meeting. According to several delegates present, a number of African countries stated - in accordance with the common African position - that they are against the veto in principle.Italy's Ambassador Giulio Terzi said that even when not used, the veto can alter or block the discussion of urgent issues. "Again and again the 'hidden veto' has prevented substantial discussions of questions that are crucial to international peace and security," he said. German Ambassador Thomas Matussek apparently stated that the veto was "an anachronism and should be abolished." But hopes of scrapping or giving it to new council members were unrealistic and should not be used as a pretext to halt reform, he added.Apparently China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, permanent members of the Security Council, all signaled unwillingness to give up, change or reform the current veto structure.
Here ends the epistle .
The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a "procedural" draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.
The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called "P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution.However The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.
The UN Charter provision for unanimity among the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the veto) was the result of extensive discussion, including at Dumbarton Oaks (August–October 1944) and Yalta (February 1945). The evidence is that the UK, US, USSR, and France all favoured the principle of unanimity, and that they were motivated in this not only by a belief in the desirability of the major powers acting together, but also by a hard-headed concern to protect their own sovereign rights and national interest. Truman, who became President of the US in April 1945, went so far as to write in his memoirs: "All our experts, civil and military, favoured it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate."
The UNSC veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. One of the lessons of the League of Nations (1919–46) had been that an international organization cannot work if all the major powers are not members.It had already been decided at the UN's founding conference in 1944, that Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course" France, should be the permanent members of any newly formed Council. However,they all wanted control over issues, plurality, will of the majority,rule of the majority, was not and is not for either of them,nor shall it ever really be.The veto, is a representation of injustice,a mockery of any forms of democratic prinicples the United Nations is supposed to uphold and represent.Removal of veto would address the lack of meaningful action in the face of atrocities and other urgent crises.The presence of veto allows those possessing same, to rule the roost.A former Pakistani Ambassador to the UN, Ahmad Kamal, states that in a democracy no one can be more equal than others and he terms the veto anachronistic and undemocratic, a sentiment echoed by many African countries. Abolishing the veto altogether seems to appeal to quite a few member states.Among those who oppose abolishing the veto—and the P5 are the most prominent in that group—references are made to the League of Nations, which many believe ended up in demise because major powers such as the US refused to join. This, they argue, is exactly what would happen if the veto was abolished: the major powers of the world would either leave the UN or disregard or refuse to pay for UN actions they oppose.I either case, what the veto is is the enslavement of the member nations of the United Nations, enslavement of an entire group of United Nations, to the will of a single one,the dominating one, the enslaving one,the democracy destroying one,the nation which casts the Veto.If the United Nations is ever to be a free and democratic institution devoted to world rule,world self-rule, world democracy,world peace,global stability,the veto must be removed in its entirety.However,the domintating nations holding the veto being what they in reality are,sadly this will never,ever come about.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Secret Squirrel On Obama And The UN Gun Convention.
Secret Squirrel has noticed odd behavior by President Obama with respect to Americans,on an issue of the question of guns existent in the world of today by his wishing to sign a UN international gun treaty that the Senate refused to ratify under former President Bill Clinton.Obama has made no secret that he wants to in effect amend the American Constitution by signing a United Nations civilian gun ban treaty. Somehow I don’t recall a legal way for America’s politicians to attack the Bill of Rights and negate any of them by signing a treaty, but this seems to be what is going to occur through and by something called the United Nations, a group of foreign alien nations, foreign and alien to America. Despots throughout civilized history have never cared about liberty or freedom, and these United Nations are made up of many nations ruled by such, despots,dictators,communists,socialists and what ever have you and whatever you wish to call or describe these foreign
potentates that rule,overrule, and misrule, people.The present Convention which has attracted such controversy, is one United Nations convention having to do,particularly, with THEIR issue of guns existent in the world.
The United States does not and has not,in the past, ratified UN treaties and conventions that do not please it,the it being,interestingly,The Executive Branch(here read,The President),and thence also the Senate.Now any UN convention MAY be attended by The Nation, read, The United States Of America,should the President send a representative. Said representative
thence has, by permission of the PRESIDENT, the ability to sign said Convention.The Senate cannot in itself send a viable representative,nor one that can sign.However, should the Senate disagree with a particular Convention,on which the President has not consulted THEM, they can vote against ratification of the Convention, and they can also, refuse to vote on the Convention, hence stalling it, in the unratified state as well,in short, not acted on.In short, the President,can act on any UN Convention, on any particular issue,without the consent of Senate/Congress.In short, Obama wishes it, a convention which directly goes contrary to The Constitution of The United States itself, THE Constitution he is sworn to keep and uphold, HE,Obama, and through his minion, one Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, would sign a convention,ratify a convention which was contrary to the Constitution of the United States, in direct effect of allowing foreigners to overrule,direct,and (mis)rule,in direct unelected fashion, the lives of the American citizen,ruling in direct opposition to, The Constitution Of The People Of The United States Of America, the American Citizen.
This particular Convention treaty is a direct abdication of the principles of The Constitution of The United States. The treaty calls for tougher licensing requirements. That means everyday, law-abiding Americans will be subjected to even more bogus bureaucracy to obtain a firearm,directed by the most foreign United Nations. It is unfathomable that regular citizens would be treated just like the criminals the treaty claims to protect us from. “The Small Arms Treaty” will hijack and destroy all weapons that are classified “unauthorized.” What exactly classifies a firearm as “unauthorized” is up to unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations. The treaty will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. In addition the Obama Administration is calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to eventually disarming every American citizen.
The Obama ruling regimen,and United Nations gun agenda, ultimately seeks to take away not only your individual liberties,the individual and Constitutionally guaranteed liberties, but also more importantly, the complete autonomy of the American citizen. It is self evident, that The Obama regimen of rule,of misrule in actuality, simply does not believe that the average American is capable of making their own decisions so Obama wishes foreigners to make them for the American citizen,they the foreigners, Russians,Red Chinese, Libyans, Syrians, Iraguis, Mongolians, Cubans, Haitians,and what ever else have you, and we do have, in the world,comprising the United Nations et all, and whatever.. Just like Obamacare, the bureaucrats want to take away your right to live freely without the government breathing down your neck. The Anti-Second Amendment Delegates at the United Nations want to pass “The Small Arms Treaty.” If this treaty is passed American citizens’ firearms rights will be compromised and the Second Amendment will be obliterated. “The Small Arms Treaty” is being billed as a treaty that will help fight against “terrorism, insurgency, and international crime rings.”However, America has it's own laws with respect to the supply of guns to anyone in particular, foreign nations and what ever et all.Should there be a problem in that regard it is by and through American governmental and policing failures to either be capable, or to enact and act on them internally and properly in the first place.
One does recall where US government,has actually been supplying guns to Mexican drug lords in what ever endeavour they claimed,but supply they did, and were and are responsible for,they did not have to by any means. The treaty is regarded as a
control on the United States supplying guns to foreign lands?Well, then the American government must simply cease from doing just that, supplying guns to foreigners and what ever we have.Curious,why ever can Obama not stop himself from doing just that merely a facade to seize control of ALL FIREARMS owned by law abiding American citizens,Americans must follow laws internally, so too can and does Obama,and any semblance of government he has.
But yet there is so very much more in the treaty. Let's have a look here,What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail? While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to
grasp).
Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.Obama is resolved to it, even yet,being there, at his direct, willing to enact it,bring it about,enforce it.Obama has not directed America, to be there out of simple curiosity,Obama is intent on reducing America, and Americans such that they become, suzerain,and subject to, foreigners and their enacted rules and laws,far and away above and conflicting with, laws deemed by Americans to be right and proper for they,the American citizens.It is and would be a direct usurpation, by foreigners,of the lives and laws, and Constitution, of the people of The United States Of America.Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real
agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama assured gun owners that he was no threat to gun rights.Hillary Clinton even yet campaigned supporting The Second Amendment.They have both been revealed to be much as the Indian basket, with two faces. So far the Obama administration had publicly steered clear of the issue,no doubt knowing directly, that a direct assault on the Second Amendment and other American Constitutional Rights, and laws of America and Americans,would be political suicide.
However, behind the scenes, Obama and his staff,have done a direct volte face,and have shown not only support for the U.N. Gun Ban,but direct approval, even yet PRE-APPROVAL,directed so by Obama,to a United Nations treaty on small arms sales that will sidestep established American gun rights and the Second Amendment,and others as well.The United Nations has ever been a favorite weapon used by the many left-leaning activist and directly most foreign, nations, their governments,and mostly directly foreign dictatorships, to launch attacks on American interests,and these leftist ideologues have tried to direct and so empower the U.N. to govern our right to fight just wars of liberation,the right to encourage freedom loving peoples to rise up and fight against oppressors and oppressions, and the right to control our own pollution standards,even yet internal to America and The American Citizen. And now this steadily advancing treaty seeks to govern the American,guarenteed,internal to America,the right to bear
arms,the treaty's threat to the right of Americans to buy guns for self-defense and sport.
The definition of "militia" as per Federal US Code:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms,as passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all
members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.The term,militia, clearly the people, the American Citizen, We The People.................and this The United Sates Code...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, as you can see, all law-abiding citizens and soon-to-be citizens are, by legal definition, members of the "militia".
In reading the early State’s Constitutions, it is very clear that they guarantee a right to arms for the common defense of the State, which in actuality means, the common defense of the community against criminals. In today’s society this is called "justifiable homicide" because when an armed citizen kills a felon committing a crime (or wounds him for the police to arrest), that person has done their community a service by helping to keep the streets and environs safe for other citizens. So, if the UN treaty was to be passed, and the American people forcibly disarmed, two things would happen, one, criminals would profit by that action, as they have done in Chicago, for example, and two, the right to self defense and defense of others would be negated, which the UN, nor the Senate, nor Obama himself can do since that Right comes from our Creator.
For example, South Carolina's constitution, written in 1776, states very clearly:
"Hostilities having been commenced in the Massachusetts Bay, by the troops under command of General Gage, whereby a number of peaceable, helpless, and unarmed people were wantonly robbed and murdered... The colonists were therefore driven to the necessity of taking up arms, to repel force by force, and to defend themselves and their properties against lawless invasions and depredations."
As we all well know, the Battle on Lexington green began over gun control, as Redcoats were dispatched to disarm the Minutemen, who were deemed a threat by "the State." Other states followed suit as well:
1. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state..." Pennsylvania 1777.
2. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State..." Vermont (1777 and 1786)
3. The people have the "right to bear arms, for the defense of the State". North Carolina 1776.
4. "And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defense; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service..." NY 1777.
The states then, even New York, recognized the absolute right of an American to keep and bear arms and that the taking up arms to defend freedom against tyranny was appropriate and right. ("The militia of this State (NY), at all times hereafter,... shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service...") the militia WAS the individual citizen and they had the duty to drill to BE ready, on their own time. "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers..." George Mason. The great patriot Patrick Henry stated: "The great object is, that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun." It must be stated that "defense of the State" was the individual militia members responsibility and in a previous essay on the Second Amendment, it was noted that State’s often passed laws that all citizens shall be armed and those who could not afford a firearm were given one (with the necessary accoutrements) and then they worked to pay off the debt, doing whatever they were told to do by the
magistrate, sheriff, etc! Moreover, that an unarmed citizen was an easy victim of criminals and tyrants was also recognized in their early constitutions.
John Adams wrote, as he defended the British soldiers who had opened fire on a mob of colonists during the Boston Massacre (1770), "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the
inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense, that distinction is material and must be attended to."
Not to be outdone, the Republic of Texas Constitution, written in 1838, declared: "the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State." It is quite clear that the word "himself" means the individual, not the collective and it should be noted that Texas took their verbiage from the US Constitution and the Amendments therein. In 1871, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that an "individual" had the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In 1842, Rhode Island’s Constitution actually uses the US Constitution verbiage from the Second Amendment itself: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now liberals have used the term "the people" to point to the collective but nothing could be further from the truth, if one reads the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, which grants the rights therein to the individual.
Take serious and careful note,that as of 2010, 27 states have introduced in their legislatures, bills that would nullify all gun registration laws within the state, and several states have passed laws that allow any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress to regulate, under its constitutional powers.It nullifies Federal regulations based on the fact that some parts of the firearm have their origins outside the state. In other words, a firearm made in Montana, that is sold in Montana, is outside their regulations! As we can clearly see, the mountain of facts support that the State’s Constitutions defend our right to keep and bear arms not only from a legal standpoint from the hand of our Creator.The early state constitutions are strong evidence that the Founders, at the State level, confirmed their intent that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was an individual right.
Obama here,clearly, through such actions as he is taking, is intent on,not only directly violating the Constitution of the People of the United States,but also,removing from,We The People, the Militia,and there for also, the governmental right to have one ready, to combat any foreign nations invading, intent of invading, and otherwise terrorizing,We The People, and is removing from We The People, the right and ability to defend The American Citizen, and The Nation Of The United States Of America.
It is therefore incumbent upon liberty-minded people everywhere not only to oppose American involvement in the treaty, but also to oppose the mere existence of such a treaty.President Obama can not try to use the legally binding (on signatory nations) provisions to shift blame to the U.N. for civilian arms banning regulations,the regulations contrary to The Second Amendment, arguing that he has no choice but to follow the treaty,no indeed, he has sent the Secretary Of State, to the convention,and has the direct stated intent, to be a signatory to the convention,it is a direct,purposeful act.
What's to be done?Well, We,The People, must make known our opposition to the actions here of Obama, and Hillary Clinton.So though the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s firearms agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic.......right? Well,let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly in dissension concerning the Convention, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
The United States has, in the past attended some UN Conventions, even yet agreed with them, but many HAVE NOT BEEN RATIFIED by the Senate,either voted against, or had votes blocked such that no vote takes place(at least, not at that time, but it CAN be brought out 5,10,15,20 years later or whatever timescale), hence NO ratification. Indeed this is rightand proper,for a President acting outside of the Senate,and/or Congress, acts outside of Government, note in the wishes,nor the best wishes of the people.Clearly a major improvement would be sanctioned actions taking place with the agreement of The Houses,the President presenting The Houses with any laws,agreements etc as PROPOSED, and thence acting on this within the bounds of the UN Conventions, and thence return to The Senate for final approved ratifications.As it is now, The President is acting improperly, exclusively, alone, by himself, without the approval of People, nor Senate/Congress and this is so very totally wrong.What needs be done in this present situation, the Citizen must address his Senator, His Congressman, with his disapproval of any such UN Convention as presently Obama is pursuing,such that they DO NOT RATIFY the Convention,ALSO, they must so address their Congressman/Senator, such that it is made clear to Obama that he should not participate in such a UN Convention as is contemplated to take place in 2012, or future without a structure in place with respect to such actions in Senate/Congress, sanctioning such future proceedings.
potentates that rule,overrule, and misrule, people.The present Convention which has attracted such controversy, is one United Nations convention having to do,particularly, with THEIR issue of guns existent in the world.
The United States does not and has not,in the past, ratified UN treaties and conventions that do not please it,the it being,interestingly,The Executive Branch(here read,The President),and thence also the Senate.Now any UN convention MAY be attended by The Nation, read, The United States Of America,should the President send a representative. Said representative
thence has, by permission of the PRESIDENT, the ability to sign said Convention.The Senate cannot in itself send a viable representative,nor one that can sign.However, should the Senate disagree with a particular Convention,on which the President has not consulted THEM, they can vote against ratification of the Convention, and they can also, refuse to vote on the Convention, hence stalling it, in the unratified state as well,in short, not acted on.In short, the President,can act on any UN Convention, on any particular issue,without the consent of Senate/Congress.In short, Obama wishes it, a convention which directly goes contrary to The Constitution of The United States itself, THE Constitution he is sworn to keep and uphold, HE,Obama, and through his minion, one Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, would sign a convention,ratify a convention which was contrary to the Constitution of the United States, in direct effect of allowing foreigners to overrule,direct,and (mis)rule,in direct unelected fashion, the lives of the American citizen,ruling in direct opposition to, The Constitution Of The People Of The United States Of America, the American Citizen.
This particular Convention treaty is a direct abdication of the principles of The Constitution of The United States. The treaty calls for tougher licensing requirements. That means everyday, law-abiding Americans will be subjected to even more bogus bureaucracy to obtain a firearm,directed by the most foreign United Nations. It is unfathomable that regular citizens would be treated just like the criminals the treaty claims to protect us from. “The Small Arms Treaty” will hijack and destroy all weapons that are classified “unauthorized.” What exactly classifies a firearm as “unauthorized” is up to unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations. The treaty will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. In addition the Obama Administration is calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to eventually disarming every American citizen.
The Obama ruling regimen,and United Nations gun agenda, ultimately seeks to take away not only your individual liberties,the individual and Constitutionally guaranteed liberties, but also more importantly, the complete autonomy of the American citizen. It is self evident, that The Obama regimen of rule,of misrule in actuality, simply does not believe that the average American is capable of making their own decisions so Obama wishes foreigners to make them for the American citizen,they the foreigners, Russians,Red Chinese, Libyans, Syrians, Iraguis, Mongolians, Cubans, Haitians,and what ever else have you, and we do have, in the world,comprising the United Nations et all, and whatever.. Just like Obamacare, the bureaucrats want to take away your right to live freely without the government breathing down your neck. The Anti-Second Amendment Delegates at the United Nations want to pass “The Small Arms Treaty.” If this treaty is passed American citizens’ firearms rights will be compromised and the Second Amendment will be obliterated. “The Small Arms Treaty” is being billed as a treaty that will help fight against “terrorism, insurgency, and international crime rings.”However, America has it's own laws with respect to the supply of guns to anyone in particular, foreign nations and what ever et all.Should there be a problem in that regard it is by and through American governmental and policing failures to either be capable, or to enact and act on them internally and properly in the first place.
One does recall where US government,has actually been supplying guns to Mexican drug lords in what ever endeavour they claimed,but supply they did, and were and are responsible for,they did not have to by any means. The treaty is regarded as a
control on the United States supplying guns to foreign lands?Well, then the American government must simply cease from doing just that, supplying guns to foreigners and what ever we have.Curious,why ever can Obama not stop himself from doing just that merely a facade to seize control of ALL FIREARMS owned by law abiding American citizens,Americans must follow laws internally, so too can and does Obama,and any semblance of government he has.
But yet there is so very much more in the treaty. Let's have a look here,What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail? While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to
grasp).
Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.Obama is resolved to it, even yet,being there, at his direct, willing to enact it,bring it about,enforce it.Obama has not directed America, to be there out of simple curiosity,Obama is intent on reducing America, and Americans such that they become, suzerain,and subject to, foreigners and their enacted rules and laws,far and away above and conflicting with, laws deemed by Americans to be right and proper for they,the American citizens.It is and would be a direct usurpation, by foreigners,of the lives and laws, and Constitution, of the people of The United States Of America.Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real
agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama assured gun owners that he was no threat to gun rights.Hillary Clinton even yet campaigned supporting The Second Amendment.They have both been revealed to be much as the Indian basket, with two faces. So far the Obama administration had publicly steered clear of the issue,no doubt knowing directly, that a direct assault on the Second Amendment and other American Constitutional Rights, and laws of America and Americans,would be political suicide.
However, behind the scenes, Obama and his staff,have done a direct volte face,and have shown not only support for the U.N. Gun Ban,but direct approval, even yet PRE-APPROVAL,directed so by Obama,to a United Nations treaty on small arms sales that will sidestep established American gun rights and the Second Amendment,and others as well.The United Nations has ever been a favorite weapon used by the many left-leaning activist and directly most foreign, nations, their governments,and mostly directly foreign dictatorships, to launch attacks on American interests,and these leftist ideologues have tried to direct and so empower the U.N. to govern our right to fight just wars of liberation,the right to encourage freedom loving peoples to rise up and fight against oppressors and oppressions, and the right to control our own pollution standards,even yet internal to America and The American Citizen. And now this steadily advancing treaty seeks to govern the American,guarenteed,internal to America,the right to bear
arms,the treaty's threat to the right of Americans to buy guns for self-defense and sport.
The definition of "militia" as per Federal US Code:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms,as passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all
members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.The term,militia, clearly the people, the American Citizen, We The People.................and this The United Sates Code...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, as you can see, all law-abiding citizens and soon-to-be citizens are, by legal definition, members of the "militia".
In reading the early State’s Constitutions, it is very clear that they guarantee a right to arms for the common defense of the State, which in actuality means, the common defense of the community against criminals. In today’s society this is called "justifiable homicide" because when an armed citizen kills a felon committing a crime (or wounds him for the police to arrest), that person has done their community a service by helping to keep the streets and environs safe for other citizens. So, if the UN treaty was to be passed, and the American people forcibly disarmed, two things would happen, one, criminals would profit by that action, as they have done in Chicago, for example, and two, the right to self defense and defense of others would be negated, which the UN, nor the Senate, nor Obama himself can do since that Right comes from our Creator.
For example, South Carolina's constitution, written in 1776, states very clearly:
"Hostilities having been commenced in the Massachusetts Bay, by the troops under command of General Gage, whereby a number of peaceable, helpless, and unarmed people were wantonly robbed and murdered... The colonists were therefore driven to the necessity of taking up arms, to repel force by force, and to defend themselves and their properties against lawless invasions and depredations."
As we all well know, the Battle on Lexington green began over gun control, as Redcoats were dispatched to disarm the Minutemen, who were deemed a threat by "the State." Other states followed suit as well:
1. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state..." Pennsylvania 1777.
2. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State..." Vermont (1777 and 1786)
3. The people have the "right to bear arms, for the defense of the State". North Carolina 1776.
4. "And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defense; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service..." NY 1777.
The states then, even New York, recognized the absolute right of an American to keep and bear arms and that the taking up arms to defend freedom against tyranny was appropriate and right. ("The militia of this State (NY), at all times hereafter,... shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service...") the militia WAS the individual citizen and they had the duty to drill to BE ready, on their own time. "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers..." George Mason. The great patriot Patrick Henry stated: "The great object is, that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun." It must be stated that "defense of the State" was the individual militia members responsibility and in a previous essay on the Second Amendment, it was noted that State’s often passed laws that all citizens shall be armed and those who could not afford a firearm were given one (with the necessary accoutrements) and then they worked to pay off the debt, doing whatever they were told to do by the
magistrate, sheriff, etc! Moreover, that an unarmed citizen was an easy victim of criminals and tyrants was also recognized in their early constitutions.
John Adams wrote, as he defended the British soldiers who had opened fire on a mob of colonists during the Boston Massacre (1770), "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the
inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense, that distinction is material and must be attended to."
Not to be outdone, the Republic of Texas Constitution, written in 1838, declared: "the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State." It is quite clear that the word "himself" means the individual, not the collective and it should be noted that Texas took their verbiage from the US Constitution and the Amendments therein. In 1871, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that an "individual" had the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In 1842, Rhode Island’s Constitution actually uses the US Constitution verbiage from the Second Amendment itself: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now liberals have used the term "the people" to point to the collective but nothing could be further from the truth, if one reads the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, which grants the rights therein to the individual.
Take serious and careful note,that as of 2010, 27 states have introduced in their legislatures, bills that would nullify all gun registration laws within the state, and several states have passed laws that allow any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress to regulate, under its constitutional powers.It nullifies Federal regulations based on the fact that some parts of the firearm have their origins outside the state. In other words, a firearm made in Montana, that is sold in Montana, is outside their regulations! As we can clearly see, the mountain of facts support that the State’s Constitutions defend our right to keep and bear arms not only from a legal standpoint from the hand of our Creator.The early state constitutions are strong evidence that the Founders, at the State level, confirmed their intent that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was an individual right.
Obama here,clearly, through such actions as he is taking, is intent on,not only directly violating the Constitution of the People of the United States,but also,removing from,We The People, the Militia,and there for also, the governmental right to have one ready, to combat any foreign nations invading, intent of invading, and otherwise terrorizing,We The People, and is removing from We The People, the right and ability to defend The American Citizen, and The Nation Of The United States Of America.
It is therefore incumbent upon liberty-minded people everywhere not only to oppose American involvement in the treaty, but also to oppose the mere existence of such a treaty.President Obama can not try to use the legally binding (on signatory nations) provisions to shift blame to the U.N. for civilian arms banning regulations,the regulations contrary to The Second Amendment, arguing that he has no choice but to follow the treaty,no indeed, he has sent the Secretary Of State, to the convention,and has the direct stated intent, to be a signatory to the convention,it is a direct,purposeful act.
What's to be done?Well, We,The People, must make known our opposition to the actions here of Obama, and Hillary Clinton.So though the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s firearms agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic.......right? Well,let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly in dissension concerning the Convention, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
The United States has, in the past attended some UN Conventions, even yet agreed with them, but many HAVE NOT BEEN RATIFIED by the Senate,either voted against, or had votes blocked such that no vote takes place(at least, not at that time, but it CAN be brought out 5,10,15,20 years later or whatever timescale), hence NO ratification. Indeed this is rightand proper,for a President acting outside of the Senate,and/or Congress, acts outside of Government, note in the wishes,nor the best wishes of the people.Clearly a major improvement would be sanctioned actions taking place with the agreement of The Houses,the President presenting The Houses with any laws,agreements etc as PROPOSED, and thence acting on this within the bounds of the UN Conventions, and thence return to The Senate for final approved ratifications.As it is now, The President is acting improperly, exclusively, alone, by himself, without the approval of People, nor Senate/Congress and this is so very totally wrong.What needs be done in this present situation, the Citizen must address his Senator, His Congressman, with his disapproval of any such UN Convention as presently Obama is pursuing,such that they DO NOT RATIFY the Convention,ALSO, they must so address their Congressman/Senator, such that it is made clear to Obama that he should not participate in such a UN Convention as is contemplated to take place in 2012, or future without a structure in place with respect to such actions in Senate/Congress, sanctioning such future proceedings.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Secret Squirrel On Canada Boycotting United Nations Conferences.
Secret Squirrel has decided to comment on Canada, a nation employing a strange political technique of the boycott,boycotting as in not attending, not attending social global interaction sporting events, and yet even United Nations conferences because the policies,politics, ideas,thoughts of other nations don't agree with their own. Canada employs the childish and ignorant technique of the boycott.Let us ponder Canada in its ridiculous boycotts,some of which are exampled here.
In 1980 Canada boycotted Moscow Olympics,(along with America) allowing other nations to garner the few medals Canada usually wins,and the large numbers America usually wins(not really wise for the Americans as there are a great many nations it doesn't like, and a greater number of nations which don't like it), shooting themselves in the foot there.The Canadians even yet boycotted an anti-racism conference in Durban,South Africa(along with America).......curious,anti racism,a conference to discuss anti-racism, and Canada chooses not to attend.
They,the Canadians,have also boycotted speeches by other world leaders,in and at The United Nations, unwilling to listen to them and their ideas, thoughts, perspectives and theories,in the free and open forum that is the gathered United Nations.Tch tch tch.....what if children boycotted schools, you know what that would lead to,what it has in Canada's government, idiocy.Canada's boycott of the Olympic Games 1980 was to protest the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.Perhaps Canada will now boycott(along with America), the Russia's 2014 Olympic Games at Sochi,will Canada boycott protesting it's(their) own invasion of Afghanistan? I think not.
So now Canada boycotts a UN arms meeting,because it disagrees that North Korea, whose turn it is to chair it,will chair it.Well, these disarmament conferences are mutual meetings geared to disarmament,trying to achieve it. Seems Canada is inclined to not to listen,heed the council of, nor respect the other nations of the world.In terms of peace and neutrality,Canada is not any of that,it has invaded militarily Afghanistan,presently also Libya,in short, it is on a belligerent course of action militarily,it is an aggressor nation,though it does nothing by itself,it does exhibit militarily pack behaviour.Canada cannot possibly say it has have every right, indeed the duty, to boycott a disarmament conference if the country chairing the meeting is North Korea,or any other for that matter. How is it possible to trust a country which claims it wants disarmament but won't discuss the issue?
Does Canada belong there in either case? No not really, they still haven't figured out how to successfully create an atom bomb for example,but if they actually ever do then they will pose a worse threat than the DPRK ever will, on the basis of their constant and continuing invasions of nations foreign to themsleves,whether or not they consider themselves liberators as that is the usual horn blown by all who belligerently invade.Should Canada ever chair such a meeting it would be “absurd” that one of the world’s worst offenders on foreign invasions should do so.The North Koreans invaded South Korea once,Canada has invaded foreign lands twice and counting. Canada claims that “North Korea’s chairmanship undermines the integrity of disarmament framework and of the United Nations, and Canada will simply not support that,” Canada will no longer “go along to get along” and will instead take principled stands on foreign policy, Canada will also press for reforms of the rotating presidency structure so countries like North Korea and Iran don’t have a chance at the seven-week helm,would it also push,perhaps, that Canada shouldn't as well.
Imagine Canada what with it's invasions of the Arab lands(for the oil supply of course),pushing some form a agenda at peace conferences!Could Canada be believed?Not really,no indeed.Canada is not a neutral,not a peace keeper, but really a belligerentnation(albeit not ever by itself).Canada is a member of NATO, a supposed defense alliance, but with recent invasions and activities in Arab lands, we see that this is really not so, NATO is, and has become, a repressive, suppressive attack alliance, garnered not to defense, but rather attacking lands, gaining political control of them, and then inexpensively sucking out the minerals and resources for their selective uses and applications,well under the guise of a fee charged for "liberating" the victim nation,Canada is part of such nations,a member of a group of such nations,and Canada is such a nation, yet they, the Canadians, condemn the North Koreans,the humungous kettle has called the tiny pot...........black.
Canada's presence actually undermines the integrity of any particular discussion on nuclear disarmament, and on any other military type of discussion due to its belligerent invasions of,presently, Arab lands.It is not for Canada to decide who
should host or who should not host any discussion forum in the United Nations in the first and any place, indeed all nations should in all equity,equality, and global fraternity be chairs at specific terms, whilst Canada should learn that chairs will
not be nations it specifically approves of and are within it's political and economic policy dictates.Canada has presently a pattern of driving a poorly defined agenda within international bodies such as the UN,when it should have a policy of toleration, respect and equality for all.You have to ask yourself what they’re trying to achieve here.After losing a bid for a UN security council seat Canada risks being further sidelined and more irrelevant by pursuing boycotts instead of showing
leadership on issues of any particular variety.Canada doesn’t seem to be definitive on issues that are going to get results and move things along – it seem rather to be blocking things that they don’t like or things they don’t appear to be in line
with,they're not providing what the alternatives are.The Canadian attitude seem to be, with the swelled head that the present government of Canada demonstrates,is a dictatorial attitude of it controlling the game, and not liking the direction the game takes, the sad snotty little nation takes it's ball and goes home.And,need we add,Canada ranks(really now), fourteenth (14th), in international arms sales.......
1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. France
5. United Kingdom
6. Netherlands
7. China
8. Spain
9. Italy
10. Sweden
11. Israel
12. Ukraine
13. Switzerland
14. Canada
15. South Africa
16. South Korea
17. Poland
18. Belgium
19. Norway
20. Brazil
Oh dear,North Korea didn't make the top 20.My,my...so should Canada be allowed to chair arms conferences?Why no, it would have to boycott itself.One simply must look at Canada now, the Canadian government, and its political position, as being
abusive,schizophrenic, and...racist, quite obviously.
BUT the game's afoot, and there is more than one ball in play in the game of international politics, and so, the game continues, without the sore looser.Canada seems stuck on North Korea having nuclear abilities, but rather curiously Canada
seems happy with the Pakistanis having it, the Israelis having it. Canada can never now have the ability to have a positive influence on these negotiations,it has a revealed agenda,nuclear bombs for nations it likes, not for those it doesn't like.By
withdrawing from the conference, Canada is abdicating its responsibility to act and to be heard on important issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and giving more radical countries like Pakistan,Israel,North Korea and Iran an even greater
influence on the outcome of the negotiations.Canada does not regard North Korea as a credible chair, but then the pot has called the kettle black, and Canada is by it's actions,also not a credible chair, just as it was not a credible chair for the
Security Council.Canada even yet argues that the UN has accused North Korea of selling weapons to Iran, Syria and Burma,other nations,not liking those nations, but does not complain about nations such as Israel,France,Britain,America and whatever and whoever also selling weapons round and about the world,to whomever they do, nor itself really, ranking,again, fourteenth in world arm sales.And need one add, it,The Canada, likes the nations it sells arms to.
It ,the UN,also said the country,North Korea,in it's arms sales, mislabeled shipping container contents, falsified information about the destinations of goods and used "multiple layers of intermediaries, shell companies, and financial institutions,which just goes to show you they have learned much from nations such as Britain,France,the United States,Israel.It is a global domination issue,a control issue, a subjugation issue,and Canada is itself a part of that very process,a very belligerent part of that process.Canada will resume its role on the 65-member body on 19 August, when North Korea's turn as president ends.And so the tardy child will have returned from truancy,to find that it has missed the the discussions, the educational enlightenment,the exchange of ideas and thoughts between nations, which took place while it was gone, and so,when the time comes for it to face its test, it will fail out of its own ignorance and stupidity,the ignorance and the stupidity of its own government which holds only its views and opinions in high regard and disclaims the views and opinions of other nations of the world in the global fraternal order of the United Nations, nation members in equality, equity, fraternity.Canada is a disgrace, it disgraces the United Nations, and it disgraces itself,by it's mere presence there.
In 1980 Canada boycotted Moscow Olympics,(along with America) allowing other nations to garner the few medals Canada usually wins,and the large numbers America usually wins(not really wise for the Americans as there are a great many nations it doesn't like, and a greater number of nations which don't like it), shooting themselves in the foot there.The Canadians even yet boycotted an anti-racism conference in Durban,South Africa(along with America).......curious,anti racism,a conference to discuss anti-racism, and Canada chooses not to attend.
They,the Canadians,have also boycotted speeches by other world leaders,in and at The United Nations, unwilling to listen to them and their ideas, thoughts, perspectives and theories,in the free and open forum that is the gathered United Nations.Tch tch tch.....what if children boycotted schools, you know what that would lead to,what it has in Canada's government, idiocy.Canada's boycott of the Olympic Games 1980 was to protest the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.Perhaps Canada will now boycott(along with America), the Russia's 2014 Olympic Games at Sochi,will Canada boycott protesting it's(their) own invasion of Afghanistan? I think not.
So now Canada boycotts a UN arms meeting,because it disagrees that North Korea, whose turn it is to chair it,will chair it.Well, these disarmament conferences are mutual meetings geared to disarmament,trying to achieve it. Seems Canada is inclined to not to listen,heed the council of, nor respect the other nations of the world.In terms of peace and neutrality,Canada is not any of that,it has invaded militarily Afghanistan,presently also Libya,in short, it is on a belligerent course of action militarily,it is an aggressor nation,though it does nothing by itself,it does exhibit militarily pack behaviour.Canada cannot possibly say it has have every right, indeed the duty, to boycott a disarmament conference if the country chairing the meeting is North Korea,or any other for that matter. How is it possible to trust a country which claims it wants disarmament but won't discuss the issue?
Does Canada belong there in either case? No not really, they still haven't figured out how to successfully create an atom bomb for example,but if they actually ever do then they will pose a worse threat than the DPRK ever will, on the basis of their constant and continuing invasions of nations foreign to themsleves,whether or not they consider themselves liberators as that is the usual horn blown by all who belligerently invade.Should Canada ever chair such a meeting it would be “absurd” that one of the world’s worst offenders on foreign invasions should do so.The North Koreans invaded South Korea once,Canada has invaded foreign lands twice and counting. Canada claims that “North Korea’s chairmanship undermines the integrity of disarmament framework and of the United Nations, and Canada will simply not support that,” Canada will no longer “go along to get along” and will instead take principled stands on foreign policy, Canada will also press for reforms of the rotating presidency structure so countries like North Korea and Iran don’t have a chance at the seven-week helm,would it also push,perhaps, that Canada shouldn't as well.
Imagine Canada what with it's invasions of the Arab lands(for the oil supply of course),pushing some form a agenda at peace conferences!Could Canada be believed?Not really,no indeed.Canada is not a neutral,not a peace keeper, but really a belligerentnation(albeit not ever by itself).Canada is a member of NATO, a supposed defense alliance, but with recent invasions and activities in Arab lands, we see that this is really not so, NATO is, and has become, a repressive, suppressive attack alliance, garnered not to defense, but rather attacking lands, gaining political control of them, and then inexpensively sucking out the minerals and resources for their selective uses and applications,well under the guise of a fee charged for "liberating" the victim nation,Canada is part of such nations,a member of a group of such nations,and Canada is such a nation, yet they, the Canadians, condemn the North Koreans,the humungous kettle has called the tiny pot...........black.
Canada's presence actually undermines the integrity of any particular discussion on nuclear disarmament, and on any other military type of discussion due to its belligerent invasions of,presently, Arab lands.It is not for Canada to decide who
should host or who should not host any discussion forum in the United Nations in the first and any place, indeed all nations should in all equity,equality, and global fraternity be chairs at specific terms, whilst Canada should learn that chairs will
not be nations it specifically approves of and are within it's political and economic policy dictates.Canada has presently a pattern of driving a poorly defined agenda within international bodies such as the UN,when it should have a policy of toleration, respect and equality for all.You have to ask yourself what they’re trying to achieve here.After losing a bid for a UN security council seat Canada risks being further sidelined and more irrelevant by pursuing boycotts instead of showing
leadership on issues of any particular variety.Canada doesn’t seem to be definitive on issues that are going to get results and move things along – it seem rather to be blocking things that they don’t like or things they don’t appear to be in line
with,they're not providing what the alternatives are.The Canadian attitude seem to be, with the swelled head that the present government of Canada demonstrates,is a dictatorial attitude of it controlling the game, and not liking the direction the game takes, the sad snotty little nation takes it's ball and goes home.And,need we add,Canada ranks(really now), fourteenth (14th), in international arms sales.......
1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. France
5. United Kingdom
6. Netherlands
7. China
8. Spain
9. Italy
10. Sweden
11. Israel
12. Ukraine
13. Switzerland
14. Canada
15. South Africa
16. South Korea
17. Poland
18. Belgium
19. Norway
20. Brazil
Oh dear,North Korea didn't make the top 20.My,my...so should Canada be allowed to chair arms conferences?Why no, it would have to boycott itself.One simply must look at Canada now, the Canadian government, and its political position, as being
abusive,schizophrenic, and...racist, quite obviously.
BUT the game's afoot, and there is more than one ball in play in the game of international politics, and so, the game continues, without the sore looser.Canada seems stuck on North Korea having nuclear abilities, but rather curiously Canada
seems happy with the Pakistanis having it, the Israelis having it. Canada can never now have the ability to have a positive influence on these negotiations,it has a revealed agenda,nuclear bombs for nations it likes, not for those it doesn't like.By
withdrawing from the conference, Canada is abdicating its responsibility to act and to be heard on important issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and giving more radical countries like Pakistan,Israel,North Korea and Iran an even greater
influence on the outcome of the negotiations.Canada does not regard North Korea as a credible chair, but then the pot has called the kettle black, and Canada is by it's actions,also not a credible chair, just as it was not a credible chair for the
Security Council.Canada even yet argues that the UN has accused North Korea of selling weapons to Iran, Syria and Burma,other nations,not liking those nations, but does not complain about nations such as Israel,France,Britain,America and whatever and whoever also selling weapons round and about the world,to whomever they do, nor itself really, ranking,again, fourteenth in world arm sales.And need one add, it,The Canada, likes the nations it sells arms to.
It ,the UN,also said the country,North Korea,in it's arms sales, mislabeled shipping container contents, falsified information about the destinations of goods and used "multiple layers of intermediaries, shell companies, and financial institutions,which just goes to show you they have learned much from nations such as Britain,France,the United States,Israel.It is a global domination issue,a control issue, a subjugation issue,and Canada is itself a part of that very process,a very belligerent part of that process.Canada will resume its role on the 65-member body on 19 August, when North Korea's turn as president ends.And so the tardy child will have returned from truancy,to find that it has missed the the discussions, the educational enlightenment,the exchange of ideas and thoughts between nations, which took place while it was gone, and so,when the time comes for it to face its test, it will fail out of its own ignorance and stupidity,the ignorance and the stupidity of its own government which holds only its views and opinions in high regard and disclaims the views and opinions of other nations of the world in the global fraternal order of the United Nations, nation members in equality, equity, fraternity.Canada is a disgrace, it disgraces the United Nations, and it disgraces itself,by it's mere presence there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)