GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS EXPOSED!

Here's a new acronym for some of you out there - IANSA. This is how they describe themselves: "The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence - a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons." Sounds innocuous enough, eh? After all, nobody is in favor of gun violence. They go on to say,"IANSA seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports. It represents the voices of civil society on the international stage, for example in the UN process on small arms, and draws on the practical experience of its members to campaign for policies that will protect human security."

The UN (which recently described its "process on small arms" activity as "Throughout October 2008, governments are attending the First Committee, which proposes and adopts resolutions on disarmament and international security. Their discussions include resolutions on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and small arms control.") is notoriously anti-gun simply because civilians owning guns are an indication of a free people, and those who enjoy freedom just may make it difficult for the UN to establish itself as the One World Government.

Sculpture outside the U.N. Secretariat in New York City

What exactly is the United Nations, and how does it relate to the United States Constitution? The United Nations is an association of non-elected representatives from approximately 192 nations around the world. During the 20th century, only 31% of the human population lived in fully democratic nations, the remaining 69% are limited democracies, communist states, one-party rule, autocracy, traditional monarchy, military junta, or have no government. Which means that more than 2/3 of the U.N. is occupied by something other than fully democratic nations. The bulk of these nation's representatives are motivated by resentment, envy, jealousy, fear and hatred of Democracy - Democratic Republics in-particular - as demanded by their leaders (possible exceptions: UK, Scandinavian countries, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand... maybe France).
You should be able to determine for yourself how the U.N. relates to the United States Constitution by now - but, in case you can't, the answer is... NOT AT ALL! The vast majority of U.N. representatives fear our Constitutional guarantees, and look for every opportunity to reduce our nation's citizens to the same subservient status as their own.

Back to IANSA... IANSA is funded by socialist-progressive organizations including George Soros' "Open Society Institute", and liberal foundations including the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. IANSA's postion on "Women and Guns" is ludicrous: "It is overwhelmingly men who buy, sell, and use small arms around the world, while women are victimised to a disproportionate degree. This dynamic is often overlooked in discussions of armed violence." There is nothing in our country stopping women from "buying, selling, or using small arms", other than lack of interest or personal choice. And armed citizens - male or female - are significantly less "victimised" than are unarmed subjects. The Brady (Gun Grab) Campaign/Center is one of the 700+ members of IANSA, and I'm certain they would have the support of Bandits Without Borders. IANSA is "on board" with the UN's "process on small arms".

In October of 2009, Obama made a couple of moves to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations. The upside of such a treaty for Obama would be deniability - "I didn't revoke the 2nd Amendment, I simply signed a UN treaty. It's not my fault they want to take your guns away." The downside for Obama and the UN is that, according to the Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by Congress before they become binding. I don't know that Congress is willing to completely abdicate our sovereignty in such a fashion... not if they're half as smart as they want us to believe they are, anyway.

Eliminating guns will not eliminate violence. Inasmuch as they are known for breaking the law, criminals will still have guns - but their innocent victims won't. They will be left defenseless. Baseball bats, golf clubs, machetes, kitchen knives, bricks, rope, ballpoint pens, lumber and automobiles have all been used as weapons to commit intentional acts of violence, but they aren't particularly effective against a criminal armed with a firearm. Your survivors can have "First Runner-up" engraved on your grave marker. Australia's relatively Draconian gun restrictions resulted in a substantial increase in violent crime. In the United States, those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest violent crime rates!

IANSA, it's members and the United Nations combined, are a greater threat to American sovereignty than many people realize. The IANSA/UN partnership is second only to the current administration in that regard.

IMPEACH OBAMA, HIS CZARS, AND THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!

Obama Revives Talk of U.N. Gun Control - All Our Rights Are In Danger!

As you enter the U.N. Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel. This should give you an idea of how the U.N. views our 2nd Amendment Right.The United Nations is, as the name implies, a concentration of voting representatives of 192 nations of the world, and two non-voting "Observer States" - the Mission of the Holy See (Vatican City) and the Mission of Palestine (Terrorist City). Those states are "united" only inasmuch as they attend meetings in a single place. Even as this blog is being composed there is some discussion among the sovereign nations of the European Union not just to have a President of the EU, but to convert the EU into a single government state with a single president! (Front runners for this position are rumored to include Belgium's center-right Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and French President Nicolas [get 'em while they're young] Sarkozy.)

As most of us are aware, the United Nations makeup is primarily left-wing nations, dictatorships, and "enforced governments" (voting permitted, but ballots ignored in favor of the incumbent). We are also aware that our Constitution is what makes the U.S. unique among world governments... it GUARANTEES us certain rights that most of the people of the world do not enjoy. Among those rights is the Constitutional right - and power - to replace a non-responsive government that has forgotten the its people ARE its power.

We are NOT Europe, nor do we wish to imitate Europe. We ARE the United States of America. We do not need the United Nations, "International Law", or the "International Court" to dictate how we will run our country. We do not need the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29 to supercede our Constitutional rights -

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) 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.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Vaguely worded, legal mumbo-jumbo that can be interpreted in any fashion the dominant authority, which, in this case would be the United Nations (after Obama signs over ownership of We the People to the U.N.) desires. It's a "they win, we lose" situation, just waiting for an opportunity to manifest itself.

Obama's plan seems to be designed to destroy both our national and our individual economies, thereby making submission to a One World government more attractive to those who cannot see through the smoke, and are not misdirected by the mirrors. Our government has spent its way into a very large hole, which it made even deeper by borrowing money from our "good friends" in Communist China. Then Obama has more US currency printed and minted, thereby further devaluing it, and reducing our personal buying power. From March to September 2009, the dollar's value fell 14.9% against the Euro. How did this happen? The dollar is declining for the following reasons:

1. The U.S. debt has risen to over $12 trillion. Foreign investors are concerned that the U.S. will let the dollar decline so the relative value of its debt is less.
2. The large debt could force the U.S. to raise taxes to pay it off, which would slow economic growth.
3. As more countries join or trade with the EU, demand for the euro will increase.
4. Foreign investors may want to diversify their portfolios with more non-dollar denominated assets.
5. As the dollar continues its decline, investors will be less likely to hold assets in dollars as they wait for the decline to stop.

The government is fully aware that this path to destruction will not rest well with "We the People". And, much to the chagrin of that same government, it realizes that it cannot just rescind the 2nd Amendment without a firestorm of response. What's the politically correct, high-deniability, cowards way out? Be able to blame it on somebody else - like the United Nations - by way of "treaty"or "agreement". To me, that doesn't seem like a really feasible way to avoid that firestorm... does it to you? But then, I'm not a politician... I just "call it like I see it"- not how somebody else thinks it should be. If any of these things happen we need to...