Obama & UN Coming For Your Guns!

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Obama & UN Coming For Your Guns!
By: Brother Nathanael Kapner (sent by Invictus) on: 24.07.2012 [22:57 ] (93 reads)
   

(3229 bytes) [c]    Print
Video: Video Link

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, finally got it right.  

The UN Arms Trade Treaty, Bolton says—likely to be signed by Obama and Hillary this week—will see our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, shot full of holes.

Bolton argues that although the Treaty's ostensible intent is to 'curb global arms sales' it will most certainly lead to mandatory registrations of our guns, pistols, rifles, right here in America, which means nothing less than confiscation.

And because Hillary and Obama will be signing a "Treaty," it will have the same legal force as Congressional legislations, more so, it will override the Second Amendment. And no Senate ratification will be needed.

Well, the stage has been set—it's almost surreal—for with the 'Batman' killings this past weekend..."white man goes on a shooting spree"...(there's more to this than meets the eye) Obama and Hillary AND the US Military have perfect justification to take away our guns.

Now, who will be the enforcers of this draconian Treaty?

The Jewish-ruled US State Department where Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a Zionist shill.

Lots of Jewish masters here—who apparently, given Jewry's decades of gun control advocacy—would like nothing more than seeing the Goyim disarmed.

First there's Hillary's press secretary, Victoria Nuland.

No, she's not some blue-blooded Gentile like her name suggests. She was born Victoria Nudelman, daughter of wealthy Jews from the Bronx.

Nudelman just happens to be married to neocon Jew, Robert Kagan, an official adviser at the State Department, who with his Jewish peers brought us the BIG LIE of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction."

And the most likely candidate to spearhead the State Department's complicity with the UN to seize our guns is Daniel Benjamin, head of the State Department's Counter-Terrorism— yes, he's Jewish—who's out to get all of us "home grown terrorists."

And their key enabler on Capitol Hill will apparently be Jewish Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a fierce backer of the UN Treaty.

Feinstein sees the National Rifle Association as a "daunting" opponent to her gun control agenda, and replacing the Jewish Lobby as having the real "stranglehold" on Congress. Yeah, sure, Feinstein, tell us another one:

Clip: "Senator Feinstein wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban. She admits she's facing daunting opposition." "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress." "Has anybody, the Democratic leadership in the Senate, or anybody from the administration looked at you and said 'Back Off'?" "No."

Yes, that's right.

Feinstein has not been told by Obama to "back off" simply because his record proves that he despises the Second Amendment just as much, if not more, than Feinstein.

And neither will the US State Department's enabled UN troops "back off"—when they come banging at your door to "register," I mean, their coming to take away your guns.

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=740
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/275075

[Michael K.]

WE GOT KIKES

It would appear that we have been Kiked by Milton Kapner (who is a probably a Russian asset through the Kik0-Masonic-Commie ROCOR):

From "A Real Kike Jews":

Brother Nathanael July 23, 2012 @ 11:44 am

Dear Real Jew News Family,

ONCE AGAIN I am going to reiterate the SCOTUS ruling on Treaties.

The most recent SCOTUS ruling took place in 2008 which RULED that if the "signers" of ANY TREATY state that the Treaty is "Binding" upon the US to comply with, then "no ratification by the Senate is needed."

AND - No "nullification" can stop it.

END OF DISCUSSION. I spent HOURS researching this issue.

+Br Nathanael

Dave July 23, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

I'm confused.

I have read that the senate must ratify the treaty for it to be legitimate, now I hear you say that they don't have to ratify it...

What is the real situation?

Brother Nathanael July 23, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

@Dave

Please read what I wrote above regarding the 2008 SCOTUS ruling on Treaties. +BN

Isn't that nice, he refers the question back to his previous unsupported claim, as though he has somehow answered anything.  Typical Kike, not a shred of self-doubt nor even the least need to be honest and factual on a subject where his 'tribe' has spoken.

END OF DISCUSSION means that he will ban any post contrary to his bald faced assertion about the SCOTUS ruling in 2008.  See, this is where you have been Kiked, because the whole validity of the story that the UN Small Arms Treaty is going to become the supreme law in America relies on this supposed ruling.  The man claims to have spent "HOURS" on the research, yet even though he can produce a blog with all the bells and whistle, he can't include a link citing any evidence to support his rather brazen claim that the 'world is upside down.'  This is how he is Kiking us, by substituting 'trust me' for proof, in a critical argument and then banning any scrutiny of the real facts.  

Here's what I found about the SCOTUS ruling in 2008 regarding treaties, is this what the Kike Krapner is selling us?

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/me ... ion/p15971

Medellín v. Texas, Supreme Court Decision

Published March 25, 2008

In this case the Supreme Court decided that international treaties are commitments, not binding domestic law. Congress has the power to implement such treaties by enacting statutes to implement them if the treaties are not "self-executing". It also decided that decisions made in international tribunals and the International Court of Justice are also not binding domestic law; specifically, the U.N. Charter, ICJ Statute, and the Optional Protocol were neither self-executing nor had they been implemented by Congress. Finally, the Court decided that without Constitutional authority or Congress' approval the President does not have the power to settle international disputes by means of enforcing international treaties.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89100044

States Not Subject to All Treaties, High Court Rules

by Nina Totenberg

March 25, 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major opinion on Tuesday that limits the force of many U.S. treaties and rejects President Bush's assertion that he can unilaterally order state governments to comply with treaties.

As the U.S. Constitution reads, "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..." So when the Senate ratifies a treaty with a two-thirds vote, does that mean the treaty provisions are binding on the states?

The Supreme Court ruled that they are binding only if the treaty explicitly says so or if there is legislation to make that clear. For all of American history, many treaties have been deemed to be what is called "self-executing," meaning that their provisions are automatically binding. But not all treaties fall into this category. The Supreme Court's ruling set a bright line for which treaties are self-executing — namely, those that explicitly say so or have accompanying legislation that says so.

The court said the president, acting on his own, cannot make a treaty binding on the states.

Of course, no official copy of the draft treaty has been publicly released, but the alleged leaked version published by The Examiner and reproduced by Alex Jones contains no language which makes it 'self-executing'.  In fact, it leaves signatory states the job to "take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty."  

http://www.examiner.com/article/examine ... reaty-text

Article 6
General Implementation

Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;

The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;

Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.

State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.

If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

CSR, you are supposed to be "Jew-wise", and yet you yourself got Kiked. If I was an admin here, I'd give you a dose of your own medicine and move this article to "Nonsense, Speculation, etc" and give you a stiff warning not to reproduce news from KIKES on this forum.  

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Cool out MK.  I passed this on from my buddy from Iraq-war.ru, Invictus.  I've posted a few things from Kapner over the years.  Looks like despite your posts above, the US Jew'd congress still could override anything if bribed enough.   Kapner basically covered something that was in the press a few weeks ago.

He likes Putin and I know that p*sses you off but don't think the wrong thing. You post basically nonsense here at TIU on crap that is basically warmed over NeoCon anti-Soviet Jew propaganda (Russia did 9/11) and then go to all lengths to hit at Kapner.  I am dubious of Kapner but he sometimes has good coverage of topics.  

Yeah we got "Kikes" we got Feinstein and Bloomberg trying to sink the 2nd Amendment in one way or another.  

Here is better coverage of what transpired lately:

-----------

July 14, 2012
U.N. Gun Threat: ATT 'Will Have A Real Impact'

Filed under: General,Gun Rights,Second Amendment — Tags: 2nd Amendment, Arms Trade Treaty, ATT, confiscation, treaty, U.N. — Woody    

Like this article? CLICK HERE to get stories like this, useful tips, and valuable resources every other Sunday in your e-mail inbox.

At the United Nations in New York City this week, the world's nations began finalizing language for a legally binding global treaty that some believe will strip U.S. gun owners of their 2nd Amendment rights.

United Nations Small Arms Trade Treaty

Meeting through July 27, 193 members of the U.N., along with non-governmental organizations, the NRA, public-interest groups, and firearms and other arms-industry representatives, are convening at the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Purported to prevent the transfer of weapons to armed groups and terrorists, ATT has been in the works since 2006. Supporters of the treaty say it will close loopholes that allow arms dealers to evade the strict laws that already exist in countries like the U.S. and transfer guns through weaker states.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon opened the conference by saying, "Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence. It is ambitious, but it is achievable."

After the conference opened, representatives from the U.K., France, Germany and Sweden issued a statement that the treaty "should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies."

Language like that troubles Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who said, "Ultimately, the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens," Paul said. "So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps. But looking at previous versions of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a good idea of what's likely in the works."

The State Department has issued a series of key U.S. "redlines," or statements, that the ATT must supposedly address:

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
    There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
    There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
    The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
    The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
    There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
    There will be no lowering of current international standards.
    Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
    The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
    There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

Despite the State Department's so-called redlines, opponents of the treaty—the terms of which have not yet been made public—believe the ATT will eventually:

    Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally
    Confiscate and destroy all "unauthorized" civilian firearms
    Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons
    Create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, 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."

Because a draft of the treaty hasn't been and won't likely be released before the end of the conference, gun advocates are worried that the worst elements of ATT would be concealed so that citizen lobbying against it couldn't be organized in time to defeat it.

Political analyst Dick Morris has said he believes President Obama will sign the ATT on July 27, setting the stage for U.S. Senate advise and consent hearings during the lame-duck session after this year's elections. He predicts that during that session, President Obama could enlist two-thirds of the Senate required to approve a treaty and get a resolution of ratification.

If that prediction comes true, then the enforcement arms for ATT in the U.S. would be the Justice Dept. and ATF.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=23740

------------

July 28, 2012

Epic Fail: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Fizzles Out

Filed under: Chronicles,Industry News,Legal Issues,News,Second Amendment — Tags: 2nd Amendment, Arms Trade Treaty, ATT, gun rights, NRA, small arms, United Nations — Woody    

Like this article? CLICK HERE to get stories like this, useful tips, and valuable resources every other Sunday in your e-mail inbox.

The Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (U.N. ATT) has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations. This is a big victory for American gun owners, and the NRA is being widely credited for killing the U.N. ATT.

NRA worked with pro-gun allies in the U.S. Congress and successfully assembled strong bipartisan opposition to any treaty that adversely impacts the Second Amendment. On two occasions NRA was successful in convincing a majority of the U.S. Senate to sign letters to President Obama that made it clear that any treaty that included civilian arms was not going to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.

On July 26, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) gathered the signatures of 51 Senators on a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing any treaty that infringes on domestic gun rights. The letter stated, "As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard."

During the week leading up to the impasse, it became increasingly possible that the Conference would fail to come to an agreement on draft language. On Thursday, the Conference President produced yet another draft of the ATT in an effort to salvage the process. The new draft, like previous ones, was wholly incompatible with Second Amendment rights protected by the Constitution.

Details of the Composite 'Working Document' were released on July 24. The draft barred weapons transfers to "non-state actors" – which, by definition, include private citizens. A U.S. delegate argued against the provisions during closed-door talks Friday. Also, proponents said the first draft of the U.N. treaty had "more holes than a leaky bucket."


http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=24086
 

[Michael K.]

He likes Putin and I know that p*sses you off but don't think the wrong thing. You post basically nonsense here at TIU on crap that is basically warmed over NeoCon anti-Soviet Jew propaganda (Russia did 9/11) and then go to all lengths to hit at Kapner. I am dubious of Kapner but he sometimes has good coverage of topics.

Perhaps you have noticed that the KGB Jew-Kike Fradkov is the new Prime Minister in "Russia", and is working hand-in-glove with O'Commah to integrate the administrations of both the US and "Russia".  How do you explain that?  

The entire "Russian" Air Force was in the air over the arctic on 9-11, grabbing up all of the bandwidth on NORAD's radars.  Coincidence?

Shit, you believe in some Christian Identity Kike fairytale about Russia and white people being "Israel" (Norael).

Iraq-war is a propaganda psy-op, not a news source.

The Kike Anti-Christ Flag of Norael:

[Christopher Marlowe]

A US Treaty, even if it is passed by the Senate, cannot abrogate the Constitution.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

I am sus of brother kappie too. All jews make it seem as if laws are unchangeable, unbreakable, they can simply be removed, it does not matter what any treaty or previous law says.