Showing posts with label Gun Control and U.S. Disarmament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Control and U.S. Disarmament. Show all posts

December 17, 2013

Before we passively allow the feds to strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts.

The following is a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued.

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated (Stalin ruled from April 3, 1922 - October 16, 1952).

3. Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people. Being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 70 million. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

No matter how we might personally feel about the gun control issue, we should realize that every dictatorship ever in world history moved to remove guns and other weapons from the people!

How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?

March 5, 2013 

Joseph Stalin, who died 60 years ago in Moscow, was a small man -- no more than 5-foot-4. The abused son of a poor, alcoholic Georgian cobbler, Josef Vissarionovich Djughashvili (the future Stalin) also had a withered arm, a clubbed foot and a face scarred by small pox, but he stood very tall as one of history’s most prolific killers.

How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?

Stalin’s extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.

An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster’s mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

But how many people is he responsible for killing?

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.
''It's important that they published it, although the numbers themselves are horrible,'' Medvedev told the New York Times at the time.

''Those numbers include my father.''
Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953.

Although not everyone who was swept up in the aforementioned events died from unnatural causes, Medvedev’s 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess.

Indeed, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million.

Most other estimates from reputed scholars and historians tend to range from between 20 and 60 million.

In his book, “Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954,” I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.

In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.

Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.

Even some who have put out estimates based on research admit their calculations may be inadequate.

In his acclaimed book “The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties,” Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest said:
“We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so.”
Quotes attributed to Stalin reflected his utter disregard for human life. Among other bons mots, he allegedly declared:
“Death is the solution to all problems. No man -- no problem,” and “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”
Part of the problem with counting the total loss of life lies with the incompleteness and unreliability of Soviet records. A more troubling dilemma has to do with the fact that many some deaths – like starvation from famines – may or may not have been directly connected to Stalin’s policies.

In any case, if the figure of 60 million dead is accurate that would mean that an average of 2 million were killed during each year of Stalin’s horrific reign – or 40,000 every week (even during “peacetime”).

If the lower estimate of 20 million is the true number, that still translates into 1,830 deaths every single day.

Thus, Stalin’s regime represented a machinery of killing that history – excluding, perhaps, China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung -- has never witnessed.

The Great Purge

By Peter Farmer
November 11, 2013

During the years 1934-1939, Soviet dictator and Communist Party General Chairman Josef Stalin ordered what later became known to history as the "Great Purge" - a period of brutal political repression, torture, imprisonment and mass murder in the Soviet Union.

Launched under the auspices of purifying the Communist Party of ideologically-unreliable elements and rooting out fifth columnists within its ranks, the purges focused initially on party leadership.  However - fueled by Stalin's paranoia - they soon expanded into the military, government bureaucracy and wider Soviet society.

Members of the intelligentsia, senior government bureaucrats (nomenklatura), professionals, land-owning farmers (kulaks), members of the military and anyone else suspected of being an enemy of the state were swept up in the wave of suspicion and mutual distrust. Suspects were typically charged with espionage, anti-Soviet agitation, counter-revolutionary activity, or the like; if no "evidence" of wrong-doing could be found, it was manufactured by the secret police - the dreaded NKVD - or obtained via "confessions" extracted under torture. Following a perfunctory hearing or trial with a pre-determined outcome, most of those charged were imprisoned in the vast Soviet system of gulags (concentration camps) or executed.  At the height of the purges, in 1937-1938, an estimated 1.2 million people lost their lives.

Aware of a resurgent Germany on his western flank, and a militarized and powerful Japan on his eastern frontier, Stalin - fearful of infiltrators and fifth-columnists within the ranks - ordered Commissar of State Security Nikolai Yezhov to purge the Soviet senior officer corps. Acting under orders from Premier Stalin, who sought a pretext to move against the officer corps, the NKVD instructed agent Nikolai Skoblin to pass incriminating misinformation implicating Red Army Field Marshall Mikhail Tukhachevsky, to Reinhardt Heydrich, the head of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) - the intelligence arm of the German SS-Gestapo. Heydrich arranged for the information to be planted in such a way as to implicate Tukhachevsky and a number of other top Soviet general officers.

So began the purge of the senior officer corps of the Soviet army and navy. By the time the process ended in 1939 - with war on the horizon - the military had been decimated. Three of the five Marshalls of the Soviet Army - including Tukhachevsky himself - were executed; 13 of 18 army commanders, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, and 154 out of 186 division commanders were removed; some were executed, while others were imprisoned or forced into retirement and exile. Some of the survivors were later ideologically-rehabilitated and brought back into uniform, but by then, the damage had been done.

Among its many effects, Stalin's purges left the Soviet Union utterly ill-equipped to fight the Second World War. Many of the most-experienced and proficient military officers in the Soviet army and navy - men like Marshall Tukhachevsky - were lost during the madness. More often than not, these able commanders and leaders were replaced by ideologically-reliable but militarily-incompetent Communist Party hacks. When the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union in June, 1941, the Russian people paid an unspeakably terrible price for Stalin's short-sightedness, cruelty and paranoia.

Stalin's purge of the Red Army is historically-significant for many reasons, but perhaps none more important than that he episode illustrates the folly of allowing ideology to trump military necessity, practicality and pragmatism. Stalin's evil and feckless acts left his nation and people all-but-defenseless in the face of the Nazi onslaught - as the purges crippled the ability of the Soviet armed forces to respond to the invasion in a timely and effective manner. It is no exaggeration whatsoever to state that the U.S.S.R. came within a hair's breadth of surrendering when the Germans were approaching the gates of Moscow in the winter of 1941-1942. Final victory over the fascist invaders took four long years and cost some twenty million Soviet lives.
----
For the historically-inclined, it is difficult not to think of Stalin's purges in light of the recent revelations of waves of coerced retirements, resignations, and firings of senior flag/general officers presently occurring throughout the upper reaches of the U.S. military. History does not repeat, it is said, but it does echo. Obama is not Stalin, but nothing prevents him and his advisors from adapting the methods of the Soviet dictator to their own purposes. The neo-communist and Pan-Islamic ideological proclivities of Obama himself and many of his top officials are a matter of public record. Likewise, the basic hostility of the regime to the traditional values and ethos of the military is well-known. Consider the following....

In 2012, Lt. Colonel Matthew Dooley, a much-decorated combat veteran and soldier with an impeccable record and fitness reports/evaluations to match, was summarily-dismissed from his post at the Joint Forces Staff College and publically-criticized by Army Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey for making remarks critical of Islam in his course, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.  The Joint Forces Staff College, which had approved the content of the course a number of years previously - came under pressure from more than fifty Muslim interest groups - recanted and fired Dooley. Today, it is government-wide policy (including military and federal law-enforcement agencies) that educational materials must portray Islam in a favorable - even flattering - light. This edict from on-high amounts to an official whitewash of the real history of Islamic world and its relations with the Judeo-Christian civilization.

Likewise, military personnel who are not one-hundred percent "on board" with the pro-feminist and pro-homosexual agenda of the White House and its advisors are being shown the door in record numbers. The case of U.S. Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk illustrates the ideological fanaticism now found in the "new" armed forces. Despite his reluctance to do so, Monk was ordered by his commanding officer, a lesbian, to go on record with his views about homosexuality. A practicing Christian, Monk replied that he was against it - and was then relieved of his duties and censured by his command.

Not only are U.S. military personnel being indoctrinated to hold favorable but historically-inaccurate views of Islam, they are being taught that traditional American and Judeo-Christian values have no place in the military. Indeed, they are being taught that these values are those of the enemy. Military chaplains report that they are being pressured - in some cases, against their religious vows - to perform homosexual marriages; other personnel report that crosses have been ordered removed from chapels located on bases in Afghanistan. It has come to light that certain administration officials want proselytizing by Christians outlawed within the ranks, but no such prohibition has been put forth for Islamic initiatives of the same kind.

If Obama's new military isn't only anti-Christian, it is atheist. Because of the objections of a single atheist at that institution, cadets graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy are now sworn-in as officers using an oath which contains no reference to God. On similar lines, an Air Force officer was told to remove a Bible from his desk for fear that it would "offend" someone.

Team Obama is relentlessly purging the U.S. military of individuals who do not share its ideological worldview, but that is not all; it is also removing high-ranking officers who have knowledge of an incriminating nature concerning the fiasco at Benghazi, or who have made statements critical of the administration's handling of the incident - which led to the deaths of four Americans.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked, was summarily-relieved of his post and forced to retire in April, 2013, after making remarks critical of the State Department's decision not to send available reinforcements to rescue the besieged embassy. Likewise, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette - the former commander of Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3, U.S.S. John C. Stennis) - was relieved of his post after contending that aircraft from his strike group could have made it to the scene in Tripoli in time to aid/rescue the trapped personnel. Officially, Gaouette was forcibly-retired for making "racially-insensitive remarks" and public use of profanity; the real reason he was forced out was for daring to contradict administration propaganda about Benghazi.1 

There are many other examples of equally-disturbing - if not alarming - behavior on the part of administration officials. This author is acquainted with numerous veterans of the U.S. military, as well as a number of personnel presently on active/reserve duty. They independently corroborate the substance of these findings.

Former Congressman (R-FLA) and retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Allen West has called for a Congressional investigation, noting that almost two hundred high-ranking officers have been dismissed from the military during Obama's administration. Such a high number of dismissals in so short a period of time is virtually unprecedented, West notes.

A number of high-ranking former army officers have gone on record in agreement with West, including Major General Paul Vallely, Lieutenant General William G. Boykin (one of the founders of Delta Force, the U.S. Army's elite counter-terrorist unit), and Medal of Honor recipient Major General Patrick H. Brady. "'There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him' over such issues as ‘homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester...'" Brady commented to World Net Daily investigative reporter F. Michael Maloof. Commenting for the same story, retired U.S. Navy Captain Joseph John stated that the "bigger picture" is that "the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years." 2 

Like the Soviet military prior to the Second World War, the present-day United States military is being gutted in the name of ideology. It is also being hollowed-out by corruption, political and interest-group patronage and leftist social experimentation. Finally, the upper ranks are being purged for reasons of political expediency and to allow the regime to cover its tracks concerning the Benghazi debacle.

The Founding Fathers greatly-feared large standing armies; James Madison spoke of them in the following terms:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."
By tradition and legal precedent, the U.S. armed forces are supposed to remain ideologically- and politically-neutral. Under Obama, that neutrality has been tossed out the window. The on-going purge of the U.S. armed forces makes abundantly-clear that he means to transform the fundamental nature of the military and in so doing, mold it into a force which will do his bidding, no questions asked. That fact ought to worry all thoughtful Americans. Some of our most-decorated and honored soldiers are doing their best to warn us of the danger - but will we - and the members of Congress - listen?
--- 
© 2013 Peter Farmer

Peter Farmer is a historian and commentator on national security, geopolitics and public policy issues. He has done original research on wartime resistance movements in WWII Europe, and has delivered seminars on such subjects as political violence and terrorism, the evolution of conflict, combat medicine, and related subjects. Mr. Farmer is also a scientist and a medic. 

Related:   

June 26, 2009

No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009



Problems With "No Buy" Terror Watch List

Similar to "No Fly List," and Like "No Fly List" Impedes Non-Terrorists

CBS
June 21, 2009

Imagine not being able to buy a home, car, or other "big-ticket" item because your name shows up on a terror watch list. That's happening to some people who haven't committed a crime and aren't terrorists, Early Show consumer correspondent Susan Koeppen reported Monday.

The "No Buy" list terror watch list, Koeppen explains, is similar to the "No Fly" list you've probably heard of. The latter is designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes. And, says Koeppen, the "No Buy" list is hindering some innocent people, in the same way the "No Fly" list does.

Sandy Cortez knows that all too well. When the grandmother from the Denver area went to buy a car, she thought it would be a simple transaction, but she got the shock of her life: Her name popped up on a terror watch list when the dealership pulled her credit report.
"I was actually waiting for the FBI to come charging in through the door with guns blazing!" Cortez told Koeppen.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control--known as OFAC for short--keeps track of known terrorists, drug traffickers, and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. The current list has more than 7,000 names and aliases, and companies aren't allowed to do business with anyone on the list. In fact, they have to check the list before any credit transactions can take place.

The Sandra Cortez Koeppen spoke to came up as a possible match for Sandra Cortes Quintero--an accused drug trafficker from Colombia. But besides their first names, no other information matched. The Treasury Department admits the list generates false positives, but refused to tell CBS News how many innocent people have been affected.
"Virtually anyone in America could be on that list," says Phillip Hwang of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
His organization put out a report documenting dozens of cases of consumers who were denied homes, health insurance, even the purchase of a treadmill because of an OFAC alert.
"You know, someone who happens to have the last names Lucas, Gibson, Diaz--all of a sudden finds that they are being identified as potential terrorists, and it really creates a lot of anxiety and panic among consumers."
Recently released government documents show complaint after complaint from consumers caught up by the "No Buy" list, Koeppen points out. One from a Naval officer reads,
"Please tell me this was some mistake and you normally do not treat veterans of the U.S. military who served honorably ... in this fashion."
Another man was confused with Saddam Hussein's son. Another says receiving an OFAC alert subjected him to "serious complications and humiliations."
"This is a very troubling practice," Hwang says, "and the federal government has a responsibility and a role to play, because they are the ones putting out the watch list."
But Treasury officials say it's not them; they say the problem stems from the OFAC matching databases supplied by the credit bureaus. They are among the companies that get paid to search the list and supply information to lenders.

Stuart Pratt, president of the Consumer Data Industry Association, tells Koeppen,
"Congress said there had to be a list. And Congress said there's a law that lenders have to look at the list."
Pratt says the large fines and possible jail time for companies that do business with someone on the list forces his members to cast a wide net in their searches.
"OFAC," says Pratt, "needs to provide lenders with better guidance on what they're supposed to do to match data. The OFAC guidance says, 'Don't (establish a) match off of a single name,' but OFAC doesn't give you much guidance for what you're supposed to do when you have three names... And, by the way, for almost every record on the OFAC list, there are aliases, 'akas.' "
With the Treasury Department and the companies that provide OFAC alerts pointing fingers at each other, consumers such as Sandy Cortez are left to fend for themselves, Koeppen says. She sued the credit bureau that provided her OFAC alert and has spent the past three years trying to clear her good name.

When Koeppen noted that,"The Treasury Department says, 'Yes, a few innocent people might get caught up in this, but it's for the greater good,' " Cortez asked, "How does putting OFAC alerts on my credit report, an accountant, a grandmother from Colorado, help national security?"

How do you get off the list once you're on. It's not easy, that's for sure, Koeppen says. If you're applying for credit to buy something big, fill out your paperwork completely, and warn businesses when you walk in that you're popping up in the list, and it's a mistake.

Proposed Law Allows Attorney General to Block Gun Sales to Over a Million Americans

New York Times
June 20, 2009

...Senator Frank R. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists.

The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.

A report in May from the Justice Department inspector general found that the list kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation carried the names of 24,000 people included on the basis of outdated or sometimes irrelevant information.

Gun rights advocates said showing up on a terrorist watch list should not be grounds for being denied a gun.
“We’re concerned about the quality and the integrity of the list,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “There have been numerous studies and reports questioning the integrity, and we believe law-abiding people who are on the list by error should not be arbitrarily denied their civil rights” under the Second Amendment.
Mr. Lautenberg introduced a similar gun-control measure in 2007, but it stalled after opposition from the N.R.A. The senator attributed the outcome to “knuckling under to the gun lobby.”

Mr. Arulanandam said the gun lobby would have to examine the details of the newest proposal before taking a position. But he added: “Senator Lautenberg has always been on the wrong side of the Second Amendment. His approach is not in the interests of public safety...”

Bill H.R. 2401: No Fly, No Buy Could Set Dangerous Precedent

By Tony Pacheco, Kansas City Headlines Examiner
May 13, 2009

Representative Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 2401: No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009. The bill states,
"To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes."
To simplify, the TSA's No Fly list, which currently has over one million names, will be combined with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used to authorize the sale of firearms.



Hold up Rahmbo, did you just say, "if you are on the No Fly list because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a hand gun in America." Read that again, "you are known as maybe a possible terrorist." So let me get this straight, this bill will diminish a citizens natural-born right to own a hand gun because you think he might be [a possible terrorist]? Not good enough. Where did the fifth amendment go?

Before we move on, let's take a closer look at the TSA's current No Fly list. The list is an ineffective joke; there's no other way to put it. Just look at any number of these cases involving the No Fly list and you'll quickly see how ineffective it is.

Here is a document outlining numerous cases of innocent people harassed at the airport for being on the list. These are official reports supplied by a freedom of information act

Given those instances, it's obvious the list is ineffective at best. Unfortunately, as more DHS reports (which outline who the government views as terrorists or extremists) are released, one could only conclude those will serve as guidelines to continually add names to the No Fly list, therefore robbing citizens of their second amendment based on their views without a judge or jury. The Department of Homeland Security's Lexicon outlines who needs close surveillance for local law enforcement officials.

I have two big problems with these lists. The first being, there doesn't seem to be a clear cut way for an innocent person to get off this list. Could you imagine living your life as well and clean as could be only to be sideswiped by a list you have no business being on? My second problem is this: why aren't you notified? Why must you find out this horrendous surprise at the airport? If you really are a threat to America, why aren't you questioned the moment your added to the list? Why would our government allow over one million known or suspected terrorists to roam around the States without interference? I don't know, but I'd sure like an answer.

Who’s A Low Level Terrorist? Are You?
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us. Recently, an American Civil Liberties Union report pointed out, "Anti-terrorism training materials currently being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) teach its personnel that free expression in the form of public protests should be regarded as ‘low level terrorism’.”

May 3, 2009

Disarming America



Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession

Infowars
May 3, 2009

As Lou Dobbs notes here, Obama is in favor of the ratifying CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms. On its face, the treaty sounds reasonable because it would “prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials” (emphasis added). However, upon reading the bill we discover the following:
Stressing the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market.
Obama has promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that he would urge the Senate to take up CIFTA. He is doing this under the cover of the drug cartel violence in Mexico. Obama and Calderon quoted a statistic echoed by the corporate media that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexican raids were purchased from U.S. gun shops and a reason why the U.S. needs to ratify this treaty. In fact, this is a lie — only a mere 17% of guns found at Mexico crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

CIFTA would bury the Second Amendment under “pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.” It would criminalize ammunition reloading (defined as explosives manufacture) and gun assembly (including firearm kits and presumably breaking down weapons for cleaning or transport).

Language contained in the CIFTA treaty insists it respects “the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of states.” Not mentioned is the fact the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has a superior rank to national laws. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified without exception, it would kill U.S. sovereignty and lead the way to destroying the Second Amendment.

It should be noted that only the Senate needs to ratify the treaty. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”

The United States was one of the first signatories to CIFTA in November 1997. The Convention was transmitted to the Senate in June 1998 and to this day awaits the Senate’s advice and consent. Twenty-nine of the 34 OAS member states have ratified CIFTA. Only the U.S., Canada, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and St. Vincent and Grenadines have yet to do so.

Obama Positioning for Back Door Gun Control

By Chuck Baldwin, NewsWithViews
April 24, 2009

On his recent trip to Central America, President Barack Obama did more than cozy up to Marxist dictators; he also signed onto an international treaty that could, in effect, be used as backdoor gun control. It appears that Obama wants to use international treaties to do what congressional legislation is not able to do: further restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.

Obama is using the oft-disproved contention that "90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States" as the stated basis of his support for the international treaty he is promoting. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA) treaty. The Bill Clinton administration signed the treaty back in 1997, but the U.S. Senate has never ratified the treaty. Obama intends to change that.

To date, 33 nations in the western hemisphere have signed the treaty. The U.S. is one of four nations that have yet to ratify it. According to one senior Obama administration official, passing the treaty is a "high priority" for the President.

If ratified, the treaty would require the United States to adopt "strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a process for sharing information between national law enforcement agencies investigating [gun] smuggling."

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee promises to "work for its [the CIFTA treaty's] approval by the Senate."

Should the Senate ratify CIFTA, Americans who reload ammunition would be required to get a license from the government, and factory guns and ammunition would be priced almost out of existence due to governmental requirements to "mark" each one manufactured. Even the simple act of adding an after-market piece of equipment to a firearm, such as a scope or bipod, or reassembling a gun after cleaning it, could fall into the category of "illicit manufacturing" of firearms and require government license and oversight.

In addition, CIFTA would authorize the U.S. federal government (and open the door to international entities) to supervise and regulate virtually the entire American firearms industry. Making matters worse is the fact that, as a treaty, this Act does not have to be passed by both houses of Congress, nor is it subject to judicial oversight. All Obama needs to do in order to enact this unconstitutional and egregious form of gun control is convince a Democratic-controlled Senate to pass it.

Obviously, the United Nations, from its very inception, has been one of the world's most ardent gun control proponents. As anyone who has ever driven by the UN building in New York City knows, a huge statue of an American-made revolver with its barrel twisted in the shape of a pretzel greets every visitor. The CIFTA treaty is one of the UN's pet projects in order to achieve this long-held ambition.

Of course, Obama is a longtime liberal radical when it comes to the Second Amendment. As a senator, he voted against the Second Amendment at every opportunity. He has never seen a piece of gun control legislation that he did not support. And as I have said before in this column, gun control is high on the list of priorities for the newly elected President Barack Obama.

For Obama to intimate that 90% of the firearms used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States reveals either a truly dishonest and deceptive mind or a totally misinformed and naïve one. Many studies have thoroughly debunked the 90% myth, including one by William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott in a recent Fox News report. According to these researchers, the real number is closer to 17%.

According to La Jeunesse and Lott, Mexican drug cartels, which control billions of dollars, obtain the overwhelming majority of their guns from the Black Market, Russian crime syndicates, South America, China, Guatemala, and even from the Mexican army.

In fact, Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar: AK-47s from China; fragmentation grenades from South Korea; shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc dealers; assault weapons from China; and explosives from Korea--just to name a few sources.

In addition, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo, more than 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in just the last six years. The vast majority of them took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

And please do not forget that corruption within the Mexican government is rampant. Many news sources have covered stories of how drug cartels bribe Mexican officials. An article in the New York Times last year reported, "One of Mexico's most notorious drug cartels made huge cash payments to officials in the Mexican attorney general's office in exchange for confidential information on anti-drug operations . . . the cartel might have had an informant inside the American embassy."

The Mexican drug cartels control a multi-billion dollar enterprise that has more than enough resources to obtain planeloads of weapons from all over the world. For Obama to assert that 90% of the Mexican drug cartels' firearms come from the United States is a bald-faced lie! Again, either Obama is stupid and naïve or he is deliberately lying to the American people in order to "sell" the CIFTA treaty to the U.S. Senate. I think we all know that Mr. Obama is anything but stupid and naïve.

Read more about the CIFTA treaty here.

In addition to the CIFTA treaty, liberal Chicago Democrat Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced H.R. 45 in the House of Representatives. This bill is anything but subtle. It is an in-your-face gun control bill that would make "Mr. Gun Control," the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, shout Hallelujah.

H.R. 45 would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including the ones you already possess. It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at a police station and sign a certificate that the gun will not be kept in a place where it could be used for the defense of the gun owner's family.

Read more about H.R. 45 here.

In all likelihood, H.R. 45 is probably a long shot at passing both houses of Congress, albeit gun owners should never take any proposed gun control bill for granted. The CIFTA treaty, however, is much more dangerous due to its subtlety and subterfuge, the less cumbersome process of passage, and the fact that it makes U.S. gun owners subject to international gun control laws.

All in all, freedom in America is on the Obama White House chopping block. And this much is certain: if the American people do not retain the right to keep and bear arms, every other freedom we hold dear will quickly disappear as well. Moreover, if we do retain the right to keep and bear arms, it will only be because enough of us--and our state and federal legislators--resist the tyrannical gun control machinations of Barack Obama. And that means defeating the CIFTA treaty and H.R. 45.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "
Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

Supreme Court to Hear Gun-Rights Case that Reaches Beyond 2nd Amendment
Man takes Chicago to Supreme Court over handgun ban
A grandfather is taking his 2nd Amendment fight to the U.S. Supreme Court in what is expected to be a landmark case.
William Shatner on Gun Control: It’s How Well You Aim the Gun
Shatner instructs a world-be robber on self defense and the Second Amendment.
Most Americans Don’t Believe Cities Can Prevent Citizens From Owning Handguns
The survey comes as the Supreme Court is wrestling with a major case questioning whether Chicago’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
SWAT Team Takes Guns from Oregon Department of Transportation Worker
Worker placed on leave abducted for mental-health evaluation after he bought guns.
George Soros Conspires with United Nations to Kill Second Amendment
"The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun — every single gun worldwide — to be under U.N. and government control."

Updated 3/26/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page