Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

etween April 29 and May 8, 1995 the UN's 9th Annual Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice met in Cairo, Egypt to implement UN Resolution 9, a 139-page entitled the Universal Declaration of Principles on Firearm Regulation. The document known as Resolution 9 made its way to Vienna, Austria where newly-installed UN Secretary General Kofi Annan referred to Resolution 9 as the UN Global Gun Ban Treaty. According to Annan this treaty, when implemented, would prevent crime by making gun violations international offenses. One of the provisions in Resolution 9, of course, would bar ordinary honest citizens anywhere in the world from owning firearms.

Attempts by the United Nations to ban the legal ownership of firearms in the industrialized nations (since the UN is powerless in the lawless nations of the world) began as early as 1955 when the UN convened the UN Economic and Social Council [ECOSOC] which organized the international congresses that created the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission [IPPC] and then began to create the "tools" the UN would need to wipe out crime in the world. High up on their agenda—or rather, the only thing on their real agenda—was outlawing the private ownership of guns possessed by lawful citizens around the world since unarmed civilians with pitchforks are no match for soldiers armed with automatic weapons..

Assuming that lawful people purchase weapons legally and criminals and terrorists purchase illicit weapons from gun traffickers (a fact that has eluded the tunnel-vision minds of the US Congress since Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to legislatively erase the 2nd Amendment in 1933), on July 28, 1998 as the UN Global Gun Ban Treaty began making its way around the world, the UN Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution to combat the illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms in Russia, China, Israel, Indonesia and several third world rogue states. On Dec. 9, 1998 the UN General Assembly, without a vote, adopted Resolution 53/111, an instrument outlawing the illicit manufacturing and trafficking of firearms, their parts and the ammunition needed to make them lethal weapons.

On the surface, as you read various UN reports or those prepared by Congress or by the Council on Foreign Relations you walk away with the illusion that all the UN has been trying to do is eliminate the availability of illicit weapons from rogue states to keep them from falling into the hands of organized street gangs, the Mafia and radical terrorist organizations. The reality behind the UN's Global Gun Ban Treaty has nothing to do with stopping rogue nations from buying illicit weapons from other rogue nations since outlaws pay no attention to the Law of Nations and couldn't care less what any law forbids them from doing. The attempt to disarm every civilian on Earth has nothing to do with the need for a safer world. It has to do with governments, who are in the pockets of the world's wealthiest industrialists and the barons of banking and business, who fear their own citizens. When government fears its citizens, disarming them is an imperative.

This imperative was first outlined in 1961 in a document entitled "Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." Most people know this document as State Department Publication 7277. The authors of the Council on Foreign Relations plan promoted by President John F. Kennedy were CFR members Dean Rusk, Kennedy's Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and presidential advisors John J. McCloy and Robert Lovett. The plan called for the unilateral disarming of the United States and the forced disarmament of all of its people, preparing them for entrance into the global society of the New World Order—30 years before President George H.W. Bush referred to the coalition of ruling nations as the New World Order.

When the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton took office on Jan. 20, 1993, they assumed the covert task of finding a way to get every handgun, shotgun, rifle and semiautomatic rifle out of the hands of America's hunters and home guardians before the United States, Canada and Mexico were merged into an "American Union" much like the European Union. Ask most American gun owners who's responsible for the efforts to erase the 2nd Amendment and most Americans will blame Bill and Hillary Clinton.

That's why it shouldn't have surprised anyone when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton quietly, and with no media fanfare, unobtrusively signed the UN Small Arms Treaty Resolution on May 19 as the American people were preoccupied with the sludge in the Gulf of Mexico contaminating the shoreline of Louisiana with oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil platform disaster. According to US law, treaties must be ratified by the US Senate before they are signed by the President of the United States. The signature of the Secretary of States, while indicative of the intent of the nation to sign and ratify the document is preliminary, but not binding on the signatory nation until it is signed by the head of State. However, under the common law of Europe, based on Emil de Vattel's Law of Nations, while the signature of a nation's emissary does not legally bind the nation to the contract, it does obligate that nation to act in accordance with the terms of the treaty until such time as that nation's Senate or Parliament accepts or rejects the treaty. If the Senate fails to act on the treaty by either ratifying it or rejecting it, the signature of the Secretary of State will perpetually bind the nation to the terms of the treaty.

The globalist princes of industry, barons of banking and business' battle to win the war against the peoples of the world who do not want their nations merged into a stateless cauldron that serves the financial interests of the wealthy few but is detrimental to the best interests of the people who will resist those efforts until the means to do so are taken from them. Which, of course, was the reason for 1955 efforts of the United Nations, based on plans structured by the Council on Foreign Relations to ban the private ownership of guns worldwide, and the reason for the Kennedy-era State Department Publication 7277 which outlined the plans to not only disarm all of the nation-states of the world, but all of the people of the world as well.

Hillary Clinton's signature on the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty Resolution was the first step. One hundred fifty-two nations—including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on behalf of Barack Obamahave signed the resolution that establishes 2012 as the date when the nations of the world will vote to strip the American people of their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. When the Global Gun Ban Treaty is formalized by the UN General Assembly and ratified by all member States—including the United States (whose UN Ambassador will be an Obama flunky), the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution will have been breached.

When asked about the constitutional ramifications of the UN Small Arms Treaty Resolution, a talking head for the Obama Administration was quick to say under the current view of the US Supreme Court that "...no reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is likely, even if Obama's nominee Elena Kagan is confirmed." There is, however a fly in the ointment of that statement which, of course, was not made by the Supreme Court or by a spokesperson for the Supremes, since they are generally mute on questions of guesswork. It is important to note that under Article VI § 2 of the Constitution we read: "The Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

When the UN Global Gun Ban Treaty made its way across Europe, I watched one country after another ratify it and surrender the rights of their citizens to own firearms. In June, 1997 British Prime Minister Tony Blair led the Labor Party to a 384 to 181 vote victory to ban the private ownership of guns in England. Brits were given 120 days to surrender any handguns and most rifles and all but the most primitive shotguns to authorities.

During that 4 month period, they were given the fair market value for their weapons. When the grace period expired, they would be charged with a felony if they were caught with a banned weapon. One-by-one, all of the nations of the British Empire were pressured into ratifying the treaty and surrendering their weapons. Gunless England is now the crime capital of Europe because thieves, home invaders, and rapists no longer worry what is on the other side of the door. They know, on the other side of the door, are defenseless victims. Fifty-five out of every 100 Brits experience "contact crimes"—assaults, robberies, rapes or murders as compared to the United States with a 1.3% contact crime rate. Yet, the social progressives on Capitol Hill refer to the United States as the "gun capital of the world" suggesting by implication that the crime rate in the United States is the highest in the world.

Brits are now demanding that the government undo the laws enacted to outlaw the private ownership of guns, and restore their right to protect themselves against heavily armed thugs, muggers and rapists. The British government which needed to ban the private ownership of guns before it could surrender its sovereignty to the European Union, knows it can't let its citizens get their guns back.

Today, Brits are protesting in the streets for the restoration of their gun rights. The UN Global Gun Ban Treaty, which has been signed by 152 nations—including England—is not likely to yield an inch to the British commoners whom have once again been reduced to serfdom. To win back the freedom they lost when they surrendered their only means of self-defense to their government will require another Revolution known as the Puritan Wars that overthrew James II of England, and ultimately installed William III of Orange as monarch, and placed the power of governance in the hands of the Parliament.

Also, while suicides by gun have reduced dramatically in Australia since the Australian government also banned the private ownership of guns, gun violence through assaults, robberies and rape has increased 11 fold in Australia since criminals, who do not buy legal guns, know their prey is no longer armed. Violent crimes in Australia, which was below 100 per 100 thousand population when Aussies were armed is now over 700 per 100 thousand. I could cite statistic after statistic to show that when populations are disarmed, crime rises—usually very dramatically. Make guns legal, crime drops. Make owning firearms mandatory and crime becomes almost nonexistent. If you missed it the first couple of times I said it, banning guns has nothing to do with curbing crime and everything to do with government fearing the people it is screwing out of their liberty.

When the 1997 Global Gun Ban Treaty began making its way around the world, then Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage [R-ID] was preparing for her third and final congressional campaign. (Helen died in a one car accident on Oct. 2, 2006 near Tonopath, Nevada.) Chenoweth feared that if the Democrats regained control of the US Senate in 1998 they would ratify the UN Global Gun ban Treaty. She also knew that then President Bill Clinton, who was in bed with the globalists behind the plot to create global government would sign the treaty, causing a constitutional crisis in the United States.

As reiterated above, while the Obama White House insisted that the US Supreme Court would protect the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, Chenoweth made it clear in several political campaign ads at the time that a 1937 high court decision held that international treaties, based on Article VI, superseded the Constitution. The purpose of giving treaties the weight of constitutional law was a "correction" to the Articles of Confederation in which treaties had to be ratified individually by all of the States before they became valid. It never occurred to the Founding Fathers that the other nations of the world would use their treaty-making power to weaken the United States by banning the private ownership of guns of its citizens. At the end of World War II, when Americans were questioning Japan's war planners, the question was raised why the Japanese had no war plans prepared for an invasion of the United States. The Japanese high command responded that an invasion of America was never contemplated because they knew, in the United States, there was a gun behind every blade of grass. Japan knew there were not enough soldiers in the world to launch a successful invasion of the United States. The American government knows the same thing about its own people. As long as the people of the United States possess a constitutional right to own firearms, this nation cannot be overthrown by its government.

Most Americans remember the massacre at Luby's Cafeteria in Kileen, Texas from 12:35 to 12:51 p.m. on Oct. 16, 1991 when George Jo Hennard, Jr. decided to commit suicide by taking a lot of people with him. He drove his pickup truck through the plate glass window at Luby's Cafeteria and opened fire with a Glock 17 and a Ruger P-89 pistol. After killing 23 people and wounding 20 others, Hennard shot himself in the head. Among the survivors of the massacre was Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost both of her parents in the slaughter. Testifying before a gun-ban hungry US Senate a few months later, and listening to a litany of anti-gun social progressives, it was finally Gratia-Hupp's turn to speak. What she told a shocked Senate, who was expecting to use her story to help their cause, was: "I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all this talk about these...pieces of machinery...having no legitimate sporting purpose. No legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. And, I know I'm not going to make very many friends here saying this, but its about our rights...all of our rights...to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys..." motioning to the US Senators on the dais.

If you think Gratia-Hupp was wrong in her statement, consider the oral and written view of the US Supreme Court when it ruled on US v Miller 307 US 174 in 1939. Justice William O. Douglas (an FDR appointee) noted on the record that "...based on the privileges standardized by the States in the 18th century..." (which was, and still is, the superior government of the United States) "...the general public—not the State-controlled militias—has to be as well-armed as its central government since the people, and the States, view the federal government as much, if not more, a threat to liberty than any foreign intruder on American soil." It was US v Miller that decided the US government to do its best to keep gun cases out of the Supreme Court. When District of Columbia v Heller arrived at the Supreme Court, after DC's gun ban was struck down by the US District Court for DC and the decision upheld at the appellate level, the high court once again ruled in favor of the people. The high court ruled that municipalities could not enact laws that superseded the Bill of Rights. Thus far, every attempt from Congress to enact a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment died before the ink on the proposition dried.

In the waning days of the 105th Congress, Chenoweth-Hage proffered a Constitutional Amendment—the American Sovereignty Amendment—that would have prevented any treaty that contained language which implied that any foreign power or international organization was equal or legally superior in matters of domestic jurisdiction could be not voted on in the US Senate until that language was struck from the document being considered, and the treaty rewritten to protect both the internal and external sovereignty of the United States of America. Shockingly, Chenoweth could not get enough support from her own Party to move the legislation to the floor for a vote. The institutionalized Republicans in the House and Senate who were in bed with Big Money were afraid to vote to protect the interests of their own constituents. Every institutionalized member of Congress on both sides of the aisle know that the road to Utopia, paved with gold from wealthy donors, had already been claimstaked by the New World Order. When the job becomes more important to the legislator than the country, its time to get rid of the legislator.

When Chenoweth proposed the American Sovereignty Amendment she knew two things. First, she knew that Article VI posed a serious problem when the Global Gun Ban Treaty was ratified in the UN General Assembly, or when it popped up from where it had been surreptitiously inserted in some innocuous piece of legislation and, like any bill, had been passed by both the House and Senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton or his successor. Second, she knew that, in 1937 the US Supreme Court enforced the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty between the United States and Mexico which divided birds into three categories: game birds, insectivores (which were protected and could not be killed) and a third category of pretty birds that were protected simply because they were nice to look at. Only game birds were exempt from protection. Conservationists with the help of Sen. Elijah Root [D-NY], fashioned a treaty between the United States and Mexico that protected all migratory birds from hunters. Root attempted to create a North American treaty that included Canada, but it appears that only Mexico and the United States actually signed it. When the State of Missouri authorized the shooting of Missourian game birds which were classified as migratory birds under the terms of the Migratory Bird Treaty, the conservationists sued in federal court. Missouri argued that under the 10th Amendment, they had the right to hunt birds in the State in Missouri. Root, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the conservationists, insisted that Article VI of the Constitution trumped the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with Root. Missourians were not allowed to hunt any game birds that seasonally migrated outside of the borders of the State.

Granted, the 2nd Amendment is a much more important issue since the right to possess firearms is a basic American right. But then, in Missouri, in 1937, so was duck, quail or pheasant hunting. With an established precedent, Chenoweth-Hage knew that when the UN Global Gun Treaty was formally ratified by a sufficient number of nation-states around the world; and was either formally ratified by the US Senate, or the Senate fails to reject Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ceremonial signing of it, the legality of the 2nd Amendment will be challenged in the US Supreme Court. If, as the talking heads of the Obama Administration contend, the legality of the 2nd Amendment is upheld as an American right, the globalists will appeal to the World Court in the Hague. I suspect that based on the Migratory Bird Treaty decision by the Supreme Court—Chenoweth's fear—the high court will rule that the Global Gun Ban Treaty, with Article VI as its ace-in-the-hole, trumps the 2nd Amendment.

The question, "has Barack Obama found a legal way around the 2nd Amendment?" has now been answered. The answer, even with Obama's sputtering that [a] he doesn't want to do it, and [b] the Supreme Court says it can't be done, is a resounding "yes." Obama knows it, and expects this ace-in-the-hole will keep him in office—long after 2016. While the liberal Anneberg Public Policy Center, in defending their boy in the White House, insists that a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens isn't possible under the US Constitution which held in District of Columbia v Heller on June 26, 2008 that "...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

I would have felt much better if the 2008 Supreme Court quoted William O. Douglas' view that the people need to be as well-armed as its government since the government of the United States, which declared its people to be enemies of the government in 1933, poses a more immediate threat to the citizens of the United States than does Al Qaeda, China, the Soviet Union or North Korea. The Anneberg Center further noted that when the Global Gun Ban Treaty shows up for a Senate vote, it requires two-thirds of the Senate to ratify it. Actually, it does not. According to the Law of Nations, since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ceremoniously signed it, the Senate can simply ignore the treaty, binding the terms of the UN Global Gun Ban Treaty on the people of the United States until such time as the Senate accepts or rejects it.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the UN General Assembly voted 153 to 1 to move ahead with plans to put into place a formal Global Gun Ban Treaty and have it ready for a preliminary vote in 2012. While the 2012 debate is theoretically going to be centered on outlawing the illicit trade of illegal small arms everyone involved in the debate clearly understands the purpose of the debate is to backdoor a complete and absolute ban on the private ownership of small arms by all private citizens anywhere in the world.

As the Obama talking heads attempted to minimize what is going to take place, on Nov. 6, 2009 former UN Ambassador John Bolton made this statement about the Obama Administration that the American people must heed before its too late: "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation-states. But there's no doubt—as was the case back over a decade ago—that the real agenda is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it requires Congress to adopt some measures that restrict ownership of firearms. The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't [get] otherwise."

The Anneberg Center argued in defense of the position that under the Global Gun Ban Treaty no nation's right to private gun ownership is threatened by the Treaty, citing UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.I/64/L.38/Rev.1, of Oct. 28 (made just before the 158 to 1 vote) in which the UN pledged that each nation-state has the right to regulate internal transfers of arms including through national constitutional protections on private ownership exclusively within their territory—which was a caveat demanded by Clinton. The Anneberg Center further noted that since the election, Obama has not pushed his promised gun control measures through Congress as though to suggest Obama is not as rabidly antigun as he was as candidate Obama. When you expect a total and complete ban on the private ownership of firearms without doing anything, why expend political capital that does not need to be expended in order to win?

Here is what the American people absolutely need to know. There is a midterm election in November of this year. If conservatives do not take back both Houses of Congress with enough of a Republican majority to successfully impeach Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Joe Biden and about 50 federal judges within the first 60 days of the 112th Congress, install a new President and Vice President, and nullify every law and every political appointment made by Obama and the 111th Congress (since an illegal alien cannot sign bills into law, nor can he appoint federal judges or other political appointees), you can expect the gunless Election of 2012 to be the type of sham Adolph Hitler used to gain supreme power in Germany in 1933. After disarming the German people, it took Adolph Hitler exactly 39 days to overthrow the German Republic, destroy its written Constitution and become the dictator of the Third Reich. Kõnnen Sie sagan, "Heil, Barack"? (Can you say, "Heil, Barack?")


 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.