July 25, 2012
It’s funny, I was worried about my Second Amendment rights just a moment ago, but now that the Council On Foreign Relations, a global governance think tank and inbred cesspool of despotic elitism, has explained the situation to me, I suddenly feel at ease…
In preparation for the fast approaching UN summit on “international conventional arms trade” in New York, the CFR has published yet another disinformation piece skewing the facts and twisting reality to lull Americans into a state of apathy:
Am I surprised that the CFR would rehash the talking points of the UN and declare uninhibited support for their worldwide gun grabbing bid? Of course not. The CFR and the UN are part and parcel of the same nefarious sea monster; each tentacle does its duty to rend sovereign ships asunder. However, such propaganda articles from establishment organizations do give us an opportunity to dissect and annihilate a host of lies and misdirections in one fell swoop. There may not be much sport in pulling apart the CFR’s poorly composed arguments, but, it has to be done…
CFR writers Stewart Patrick and Emma Welch begin with a kind of red herring distraction, immediately bringing up the internal conflicts in Syria as some kind of rationale for the UN putting its nose into the gun buying habits of sovereign countries. I would like to point out that most of the “illegally procured” firearms being shipped into Syria are coming from the U.S. to supply an insurgency which is now looking more and more like a bought and paid for destabilizing false flag army rather than a true and honest revolution for freedom:
I am highly doubtful that the UN has any intention of stopping this activity on the part of the U.S., primarily because they have never declared opposition to the covert support of Syrian rebels. On top of this, the guidelines of the UN Small Arms Treaty are so broad that they could be interpreted any number of ways to fit any number of desired outcomes. If the UN wanted to label the supply of U.S. arms to Syrian insurgents “legal” within the bounds of the treaty, they could. The injection of Syria into the treaty issue by the CFR is an obvious ploy designed to make you falsely associate the UN action as being useful in combating Syrian destabilization, even though this is in no way the UN’s goal.
Ironically, after slipping the Syrian crisis into the discussion to manipulate readers, without mentioning the U.S. government’s involvement in the clandestine supply of arms to the opposition movement, the CFR then attacks Iran’s involvement in the treaty as hypocritical, because of their alleged funneling of arms to the Assad regime. So, within the first two paragraphs of their article, the Council on Foreign Relations has dishonestly tied Syria to the gun treaty debate with cherry-picked data and criticized Iran for supposed crimes of which the U.S. is also guilty. This kind of disinformation truly boggles the mind…
The article continues by outlining the “horrors” of the small arms trade, which it immediately associates with terrorism, rogue states (of which they apparently include Iran, but not the U.S.), and criminal syndicates. When, in fact, most of the arms deals taking place in shadow markets around the world are consistently discovered to be facilitated by governments themselves (as the Syria crisis clearly illustrates as well as the Fast and Furious scandal). I still have not seen any indication from the UN that this is a problem for them as long as participating governments play the globalist game. You can read the text of the Small Arms Treaty here:
The only thing the UN treaty accomplishes is a double standard in favor of establishment entities to which the rules do not apply. A destabilized Syria serves globalist interests, and so, the insurgency WILL get U.S. arms, and the United Nations WILL look the other way, treaty or no treaty.
The CFR goes on to claim that:
“…participating countries generally agree that a treaty is desperately needed and long overdue…”
This is to paint a false image of consensus in the minds of readers. It is as if we are supposed to say “well, if everyone is for it, then I am too…”
Only a few lines later, the article contradicts itself by lamenting:
“…despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations…”
So, we finally get to the heart of that which chaps the CFR’s behind, and the primary reason the article was written: Domestic opposition to U.S. participation in the UN treaty.
Government opposition to the treaty is not what worries the UN. Barack Obama will sign the accord in a heartbeat and salivate while doing it. What does concern the globalists is the fact that so many Americans, millions of them, are largely against the proposition. This fact, in itself, is very revealing of their true intentions.
Why is it that, though the UN has clear support from our President and our Secretary of State, they are so adamant about public support and acceptance? Senate ratification may become a stumbling bloc, but their arguments do not address the senate; they address us as citizens. Why is the CFR so concerned with convincing us that the treaty is “harmless”? If the treaty is going to be signed regardless of what we feel, and if it is truly not a threat to our rights, then why not simply pass the resolution, and show us through action that our right to own firearms is not under threat? Why are the UN and the CFR so interested in manufacturing our consent?
The reality is, laws and treaties, domestic and international, are mostly implemented to achieve psychological acceptance from the populace. If a law or set of principles is written down and praised by the bureaucratic circus, but the people do not embrace the action, then the lawmakers have ultimately accomplished nothing. They are not satisfied with codification. They want cultural identification. They want people to love the new law.
I have found in my time tracking and analyzing corrupt law, the harder the shills work to convince you that a particular regulation is innocuous, the more dangerous it ends up becoming.
The CFR continues by giving a deliberately weak sided opposing view to the treaty by quoting arguments from the NRA and Mitt Romney, of all people. The NRA has many times in the past actually contributed to the support of laws in the U.S. which are undermining to the 2nd Amendment and has long been considered by knowledgeable gun right advocates to be controlled opposition. Mitt Romney’s (flip-flopper extraordinaire) record on gun control is no better than Obama’s:
The CFR would of course never quote true and intelligent proponents of gun rights, like Gun Owners of America, for instance. Otherwise, their string of logical fallacies would be completely disrupted.
That said, the threat to American sovereignty and Constitutional protections is indeed on the minds of many in this country. The CFR labels these concerns “inflammatory” and “unfounded”. They list the stock responses and talking points which have no doubt been composed and passed around by the UN. I have listed them below, along with the reasons why they are disingenuous:
1) The treaty is limited to the international trade of conventional arms, which pertains to the buying, selling, transshipping, transferring, or loaning across borders.
Don’t worry America, the UN treaty only covers the importation and exportation of firearms, says the CFR. I would like to remind you, though, of similar situations that have been exploited by the Federal Government here in the U.S. in the name of the Commerce Clause. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to allow the Federal Government some oversight over the FOREIGN and INTERSTATE trade of goods. Sovereign states were meant to retain governance over all internal commerce.
Unfortunately over time, especially since FDR’s presidency and the New Deal, the government has used and abused the commerce clause, subjugating the rights of states and claiming authority over ALL trade, not just external trade. Even when a state takes a stand on a particular form of commerce, as Montana has with firearms or medical marijuana, the Federal Government has ignored local law and unleashed alphabet agencies like the FBI, ATF, and FDA to crush dissenters. I have no doubt that the UN will eventually abuse the Small Arms Treaty just as our Federal Government has abused the Commerce Clause.
2) The draft text of the treaty explicitly recognizes “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through the constitutional protections on private ownership.
As stated above, there are no guarantees on this. Also, there has been a consistent push by globalist academia to assert that treaties somehow “supersede” Constitutional protections. This argument comes primarily from a misguided interpretation of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution by men like Chief Justice John Marshal, who said in 1829:
“A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument…In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature…”
Marshal was a very confused and foolish interpreter of the Constitution, at least in this instance. In regards to treaties and the Supremacy Clause in general the Constitution clearly states:
“This 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 Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Meaning, all laws and treaties are subject to the guidelines of Constitutional rights and the laws of the states first and foremost. If a law or treaty violates those rights, it is null and void. Period. Sadly, this fact has not stopped the use of treaties by certain government officials and think tanks as an argument for an end run around the Constitution.
3) In response to the charges that the treaty would co-opt U.S. national sovereignty, arms control experts argue that the treaty would have “little to no impact” on existing regulatory processes…
By signing this treaty, the U.S. would indeed lose sovereignty. The CFR acts as if the UN is simply handing out a short list of guidelines and giving regulatory control to nation states. It would seem they have not read the fine print.
Article 13 of the UN treaty establishes what they call the “Implementation Support Unit”. This group collects data from member countries, oversees the enforcement of treaty provisions, asserts final authority over the interpretation of said provisions, collects financial obligations from member countries, and centralizes the entire process under one roof. The ISU will be a UN agency that administrates over the U.S. and other countries when it comes to the trade of small arms. For the CFR to claim that the U.S. will not lose sovereignty is a flagrant falsehood.
4) In an attempt to diminish concerns that the UN will overstep its bounds when it comes to U.S. sovereignty, the CFR states: “The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” Instead, the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide…”
My question is, if the United States ALREADY has a rigorous export control system, then why is it necessary for us to join the UN gun treaty at all???
The CFR moves forward by stating that the U.S. must use its position to “set an example”, but it would appear that we already have set that example according to the CFR’s own words. What purpose then does a UN treaty on guns serve? Why do we need the UN to mediate anything? Does anyone have a logical explanation for this? I would enjoy hearing it.
I believe that the UN Small Arms Treaty is another step, perhaps an important step, in the imposition of a subversive philosophy: that gun ownership is an affront to the “globally conscious”. That it is a barbaric relic of a bygone era, and that it is no longer practical in our modern times. The mass shooting in Colorado this past week has been used as a rallying point for the anti-gun fervor, but what that event really showed us is what the world would be like if law abiding citizens were totally disarmed (as they were in Aurora by anti-carry laws within the city). Criminals will always be able to get weapons, and they will almost always choose targets that are unarmed and low risk. If Americans lose their right to bear arms, I can promise that we will see massacres like the Aurora Theater attack on a regular basis.
As far as national sovereignty is concerned, the CFR is completely unqualified to comment. CFR members have in the past openly admitted the true purpose of their organization, which is to eliminate national sovereignty and institute global governance:
“The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind,
that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to
American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization.
Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further
CFR “American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments”, 1944
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established…I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” Dr. Carroll Quigley, CFR Member, Mentor to Bill Clinton, from Tragedy and Hope
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Strobe Talbott, CFR Member
In light of this information, I find the Council On Foreign Relations’ attempts to reassure us on the safety of our sovereignty rather hilarious. Their blind stab at defending the UN’s gun treaty tells me all I need to know. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and no quarter should be given to these people. None. Their intentions are not honorable, and they often seek to deceive to get what they want. Our safest bet is to stand in the way of any action they choose to support. If it’s good for them, it will invariably be bad for us.
This article was posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 7:12 am