July 20, 2012 1 Comment
This is the Treaty that no citizen of any country should allow public servants to introduce, adopt or vote in favor of; neither in part nor in full.
By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JULY 20, 2012
Everyone knows the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or at least has heard about some of the most important rights that it contains. There are, however, two articles I’d like to concentrate on as a preamble to the main topic of this article. Those articles are number 28 and number 29. So let’s cite them here in full and try to understand their implications.
Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.“
Please understand that the United Nations was created back in 1945, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was officially adopted on December 10, 1948 in Paris France. That is just three years after the creation of the United Nations itself. Now, please call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but does not article 28 resemble a lot the type of speech the politicians of the world and the main stream media have been filling airtime with for the past three to five years? What article 28 basically says is that we are all entitled to a World Order. If this term is new to you, please do your own research and get yourself familiar with it. An international social order is what Bankers, Politicians and main stream media outlets have been claiming for more strongly in the past 24 months.
Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is closely related to the next article; number 29. In essence, article 28 says that we are entitled to having an international social order in which the content set on the declaration is fully realized. So, let’s tie it to the following article in order to understand the magnitude of their meaning before we move on.
Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:
“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
The complete article 29 has serious implications, but it is especially the last sentence, together with article 28, what should make anyone who the most minimum sense of self-preservation fall off their chair. What the last sentence of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights means is that all of the rights supposedly given to any person under that declaration are void, should such rights are exercised in a manner that opposes the principles that govern the United Nations. So, on one side we have an organization that specifically intends to create a world order, and on the other it affirms their intention to limit or eliminate a human’s rights if it considers that those rights infringe its own existence.
If this connection between articles 28 and 29 are not serious enough to get you moving, let me add another caveat. The United Nations as an organization possesses the legal standing of a person. Although it sounds paradoxical, it is exactly as it is written. The UN is an organization conceived by monopoly men that is legally understood as being a person.
Please keep the information presented up to this point when reading further.
A few years ago, rumors about how the United Nations was considering some kind of non-binding agreement or treaty that would ask member nations to adopt tighter arms controls saw the day of light. At that point, it all seemed unclear and mere speculation. Then, the supposed idea for the creation of a non-binding agreement got a name. Today, it is publicly being identified as the Arms Trade Treaty. Although its name suggests that this may be a kind of plan to limit, control or prohibit the sale of arms as a way to avoid so-called illegal arms trade, — of the kind of Fast&Furious — it is not so.
As the title of this article describes it, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is the beginning of the United Nations’ plan to carry out a globe wide disarmament of every nation on the planet, and with it the effective disarmament of each and every single person who lives in those nations. As expected, the warnings regarding the repercussions that such a treaty would have on the right to keep and bear arms, which exists in many countries, began immediately. Most of those warnings are sounding in countries like the United States, where 130 Congressmen wrote to Barack Obama voicing their concerns:
“We write to express our concerns regarding the negotiation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the text of which is expected to be finalized at a conference to be held in New York during the month of July…. The U.S. must not accept an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights, particularly the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment.”
In addition to Congress, the National Riffle Association (NRA) also sounded the alarms on June 29, warning about the threat that the ATT poses to the rights of the citizens, which it believes, would be violated if the United States were to adopt or accept such a treaty:
“… the Senate has final say on treaties, and stating their unequivocal opposition to any treaty that would affect civilian ownership of firearms, challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms within the United States, or call for an international gun registry.”
Although most of the text of the treaty now being discussed in New York has been kept off the public eyes, some very revealing portions were made available which help us understand what this treaty intends to achieve. Take a look at the following sentence: “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been … misused by lawful owners”. That is why the UN is now proposing that a new Arms Trade Treaty be created to “regulate in ways that would … minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” So the ATT is meant to regulate those people who right now own fire arms because the UN thinks that some owners have, or may in the future misuse the existing laws that govern over the purchase, sale and possession of fire arms in each country.
As explained by Larry Greenly in his article Oppose Signing and Ratification of the UN Arms Treaty, the United Nations considers gun ownership a failure and is proposing an arms treaty in order to curtail such a ‘failure’. Mr. Greenly correctly states that “the U.N. regards gun ownership — even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities — as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.”
Remember that idea that the treaty was not going to be binding? Well, the tides have changed and now the UN is talking about a completely binding resolution for all of the signing member states. What reason does the UN and its supporting institutions provide to agree on and enact an arms treaty? “It has been estimated that approximately three quarters of a million people are killed each year in armed violence. Millions more lives are blighted through injury, displacement and destroyed livelihoods,” said UN Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt. At this point it is important to bring up the fact that during the 20th century, governments murdered between 260,000,000 and 350,000,000 people. Doesn’t it make more sense then to create a treaty that did away with violent forms of government if all we want is to protect people from dangerous, irresponsible use of arms?
Despite Congress and the NRA showing their concern about the ATT, there are still people, especially in the blogosphere and forums who say that, even if approved, the treaty wouldn’t have any impact, because this kind of agreements cannot overwrite the Constitution. That is exactly what everyone thought before the National Defense Authorization Act was approved, before the Patriot Act was passed, before Barack Obama said he would govern by issuing executive orders if he had to, before he and Leon Panetta said that the Pentagon did not need permission from Congress to carry out wars abroad, if the UN authorized them. If that type of discourse is not clear enough to understand that the UN and the corporations that founded it are in charge, then these bloggers and forum participants are missing a screw.
The Arms Trade Treaty is also underestimated because some of its details resemble or originate from ideas contained in the 1961 Freedom from War document signed by John Kennedy. Let’s see what that document says. Among its objectives and goals, the text says that nation-states adhere to common standards of justice and international conduct. This is reinforced by the principles established in the document, which say that “As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened”. The disarmament of all nations is scheduled in three stages. In stage 2, the plan is the “establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations.” In other words, the Freedom from War treaty is a United Nations strengthening, nation-state weakening tool, which would be further empowered by the new Arms Trade Treaty, which would give a global reach to the powers already vested upon the UN.
An interesting point to make about the Freedom from War document and the new United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is that in both cases the language used to describe the goals, stages, requirements and so on are so vague, that it simply invites any interpretation that the people that get the power desire to adopt. That right there is the most dangerous part of the whole issue. Vagueness invites abuse and abuse brings about repression.
When it comes to learning our lessons, especially the ones related to tyranny, there isn’t a better way to do so than by looking back to history. In this case, we will look at the history of the United Nations preparation for the period of time we are entering into right now, and that period is the one where the UN will make a strong push to disarm all nations and its citizens. One reference for the analysis of recent history takes us to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Another reference is a document called Removing Military Weapons from Civilian Hands.
When describing the use of small weapons by citizens or civilians, the above cited document says that “such weapons make it increasingly difficult for society to rebuild itself following a period of conflict… … This reality makes it more difficult for the State to regain the monopoly of force“. The United Nations believes that the government monopoly of force should be the standard state of affairs. As explained and sourced earlier, we all know by studying history, what a government monopoly of force resulted in last century. So, why would the UN be advocating for a step back in the direction of the mass murder of hundreds of millions of people?
The reason why the UN promotes a monopoly of force in the hands of the States is because while this organization is working hard on disarming individuals, it is also working even harder to become the sole policing power of the planet. It will be in complete power of the most dangerous weapons that exist today, if nations decide to go along the propaganda put out by the UN to “live free from war” which would turn the UN in the unique administrator of all weapons, small and large. What advantages would exist if people were completely disarmed?
For starters, “it would make it hard for anyone to lobby for the maintenance of the people’s right to keep and bear arms,” says the document, because the UN’s initiative would be seen as an effort offer people safety from guns. This view of what the right to keep and bear arms means comes from the idea that people owning guns is about them being able to go hunting whenever they please. Well, in reality the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting, but about the right of the people to defend themselves from the oppression of the government and those who carry out its deeds.
The right to keep and bear arms is a legitimate right, because it was constitutionally adopted and it is written on the document that countries use as the base to conduct business in many parts of the world. That brings us to ask, where does the UN get its legitimacy? For that we need to go back to the founding of the United Nations. Who is the founder of this organization? The key proponent of the UN was Alger Hiss, an American lawyer and communist spy for the Stalin regime, as testified in Congress under oath by Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member. Other founders of the UN include the Rockefeller family, and some other 30 or 40 members of the Council on Foreign Relations members, among others. Rockefeller himself donated the land on which the UN building sits today. Many people will say, ‘well, but all those countries agreed to create the UN and signed the document that legitimized its creation’. I wouldn’t characterize their actions in legitimizing the UN to more than participating in the signing of the text that Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other globalists had written. In other words, the UN has no legitimacy to be the international body that it is today, since the founders of such a body were not the nations of the world, but Mr. Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other members of the CFR.
Having addressed the issue of legitimacy, let’s continue analysing recent history of the UN attempts to disarm us all. A 2011 document written by Sarah Parker and titled “Improving the Effectiveness of the Programme of Action on Small Arms“, hosted on the website of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, gives us another insight into what the United Nations has in stake. The main goal of this document is to shed more light on the UN initiative to limit and later eliminate the possession of small arms by civilians. In order to achieve their goal, the globalists behind the UN want to implement policies of marking and tracing firearms, as well as creating a digital registration database of all arms in the hands of civilians. The UN also wants to “dispose and destroy” all arms that it collects from individuals and governments, establish “moratorium on the manufacture of small firearms”, which is what Obama has announced he will do in his second term as president of the United States and what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has begun to do.
Under the guidelines of the above mentioned Programme of Action, the UN is calling for more regulation of firearms ownership. “Greater controls for firearms owners is required”. The document also describes how the UN lacks the financial support to create an electronic record of who owns what, and how the nations should chip in to create a fund that would enable the UN to be able to trace all firearms. What the UN is proposing then, is that each country creates a national gun registration database, whose oversight can be transferred to the UN so that it does not cost a penny to the globalists behind the organization.
There is a need to “train law enforcement providers in weapons collection and destruction:. Remember what happened to New Orleans residents after hurricane Katrina? In case you are not aware, the US National Guard took to the streets of New Orleans to illegally confiscate firearms from its legal owners. Members of the Guard kicked down doors, beat homeowners and confiscated all kinds of firearms to “keep people safe” from them. “Training is needed in modern methods of destruction,” continues to describe the document.
Under the section labeled as Public Awareness, the Programme of Action says that it is necessary to enhance the UN’s campaign to get rid of all firearms and that this campaign needs to have an extensive social reach. It also says that such campaigns should include ways to pacify the people who are against surrendering their guns for fear of becoming helpless should any governmental abuse take place, which the document calls false perceptions. Really? After 350,000,000 deaths the UN sees mistrust of governments use of force as a false perception?
Of course, the failure of the UN to end with such perception requires to carry out illegal arms trade — such as Fast & Furious — in order to manufacture the need to have an Arms Trade Treaty. And as if the existence of illegal arms trade wasn’t enough of a fake excuse to bring about the regulation of the individual right to keep and bear arms to defend oneself from oppressive governments and your standard criminal, the UN also cites the fact that the creation of a binding agreement would globally legitimize their attempt to limit ownership of firearms.
To sum up, an illegitimate organization created by globalists and bankers in 1945 has found a way to request the complete disarmament of every country in the world and every citizen in those countries under the excuse that a more peaceful world can be achieved in that organization alone becomes the sole owner of all weaponry that exists on the surface of the planet, in space and under the ground. That same organization, in its Universal declaration of Human Rights states that we all have rights which can be exercised, unless the UN decides the exercise of those rights infringes its existence. Under the UN plans, there needs to be only one POLICE that secures peace and prevents conflict by imposing force over anyone who dares challenge its reign over all nations and individuals. This organization by all known as the United Nations has also lovingly provided us with the right to live under a centralized social world order which it itself will command.
How is that for a peek into the future of our lives under the reign of the banker, globalist run United Nations and its Arms Trade Treaty?