Ms Clinton and the UN Gun Stealers

The United Nations, disguised as a well meaning arbiter of peace, decided a long time ago that regular people having guns is a bad thing. This fact would be undisputed by anyone who understood art and also noticed that large statue outside the UN (of a gun, with the barrel twisted in a knot. Note that this gun is not a military weapon). The reason for this - an armed citisenry like exists in Sweden and the US. Not knowing who has guns and how many of those would defend their rights against a one world or other hostile takeover would make taking over places like the US and Sweden a risky venture at the very least and quite possibly a fool's errand.

Enter Hilary Clinton. Enter the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Once again, this is not an effort to promote world peace. This is not a nuclear ban or a control of military might. Nebulously disguised as an attempt to prevent terrorism, global mafias and insurgencies (ie revolutions which might ouster one-world happy dictators), this treaty is a global gun control power grab.

In the end, it will require nations to register, confiscate and eventually ban firearms owned by private citisens. That's YOU and ME folks, not the mafiosi of the world. It's also, as usual, an assault on national sovereignty. Translation, another nail in the coffins prepared for independent minded nations like the United States.

Like everything else nefariously planned by the United Nations, it is a binding treaty which calls for Congress to approve of it. (Isn't that sweet, a nation voting for it's own demise?!)

Don't let your congress do this to you without your protest!! IT takes 65 Senate votes to approve of a treaty. As you know, once it gets passed congress, Obama will definitely sign it into law, so it's up to the Congress to stop it. But, there really isn't a solid pro-second amendment bloc in the Senate. Remember the confirmation of anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sotamayor? Remember too how congress tends to back off making the President look bad on the world stage? And remember that our Secretary of State, appointed by the Obamanation himself, has promised to work closely with the United Nations to draft and promote this horrific idea.

Frankly the only way to defeat this nausea inspiring power grab is for every Senator in every district to believe that his or her seat is in grave danger if they get with this abhorrent program.

Money talks and B******* walks. They won't vote for it if they believe they will lose their jobs. Perhaps they will stand and say 'The people have spoken, we won't do this.' But I doubt it. More likely they will bury it in committee like they have with many other nauseating treaties. Or perhaps they will even disappear into the night to avoid this measure coming up at all like they did in Wisconsin...

Honestly, any of those would suffice, though I'd rather someone like Rand Paul or his father stand up and say "This is against our Constitution, take this treaty and shove it where the sun don't shine." Hey, I can dream, can't it?

UN Threatens Religious Freedom and National Sovereignty

"First, they came for the socialists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one
left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the one worlders in the UN decided to launch an attack on freedom of religion. Actually, they have been doing it for a while, but they are tightening the noose with greater and greater pressure on countries who believe it is in their best interest to bend the knee to the almighty UN. The one of the more recent abominations is the "UN Resolution on Defamation of Religion." The link goes to a UN press release about the monstrous document.

This is the brainchild of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference). The OIC started ramming the idea down the throat of the world after 9/11 and increased the pressure after the infamous Mohammed Cartoons. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, it was necessary due to "desperation and injustice" felt in the Muslim world because of the cartoons, counter-terrorism measures, immigration laws and the like. The non-binding document passed 108 to 51, with 25 abstentions. The US was one of those who voted against it.

Leo said it was because 'this resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions. We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion, or people of a certain faith.'

Well, he does partially get it.

The resolution benignly states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. All well and good, everyone does have that right. However, the document is not a call to tolerance of all faiths. In addition, it is filled with lies. While pointing out a 'negative projection of Islam in the media,' it also says that 'Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.'

OK, so Buddhists and Jews populate Al-Quieda, I suppose. And I suppose that people in the Sudan are not enslaved and tortured for their beliefs? I suppose it is not a human rights violation to arrest a woman for being alone with the men who raped her. Right and I am a tiger lily.

The fact is that acts of torture under Islamic rule are verified, discrimination against non-Muslims takes place in many Islamic countries on a regular basis and non-Muslims are frequently persecuted in the name of the prophet. It is true that not every Islamic country persecutes actively. Kuwait is pretty tolerant, and Turkey as well. However, Muslims around the world need to acknowledge that there are places out there that do these things in the name of their faith.

And another thing, as pointed out by bloggers who were as diverse as the rainbow (such as Pagans, Christians, and Humanists), WHAT exactly is defamation?

Is it defamation to point out that the man who committed an honour killing last week was a Muslim? Is it defamation to mention that Mohammad had people killed if they disagreed with him? Is it defamation to criticise the tenants of Islam by doing a critique of the Koran? Without a definition, many atrocities could take place and persecution could result in countries that were not outwardly Muslim if a Muslim managed to be offended too strongly.

I know it has nothing to do with freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof as defined in the US Constitution. It does not take a rocket scientist to deduce this if you look at those who voted in favour of this resolution. Muslim countries could not possibly have meant to criticize their own behaviour; they could not have wanted to embarrass their own governments. Included in the list of those who voted for the resolution are: Bhutan: No idea what freedom of religion is. China: Not Free (they regulate everyone from Christians to Feng Shui experts) Cuba: not free for years Pakistan: They cannot even decide if it is ok for other Muslims to play instruments Russia: Not as bad as they were before, but the noose is tightening again. Saudi Arabia: Very oppressive. My ex could not buy a coke when he was stationed there because the company was 'owned by Jews' and magazines would be cut to pieces by censors before they arrived by anything other than military mail.

Not only this but the document sez what while 'everyone has the right to freedom of expression,' it should be 'exercised with responsibility and may' (there had to be a *but* in here somewhere) 'be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals...' Ahem. In other words, freedom of religion can be regulated to death in the name of public order.

This is how non-secular Muslim nations behave now. And the hidden agenda of the whole exercise is to make it politically impossible to criticise Islam. And considering the fact that simply converting to another faith, belonging to another faith, or evangelising for another faith is illegal and punishable in many Muslim countries, it makes sense that defamation includes all of the above. Converting is a criticism of Islam. If Islam were fine, one would not leave it. Believing in another faith indicates that one does not put faith in Mohammad or the Koran, which indicates that you see error. In addition, evangelism often includes apologetics, which is a direct criticism, and involves at least one and possibly two of the other 'attacks' listed above even if no discussion of comparative religions actually occurs.

Therefore, you see, this resolution is an attempt to put a muzzle of the free expression of religion all over the world. (What the Muslims dont get is that eventually, in the New World Order, they will be outlawed too. Those who wish to dominate the world have no problem indulging 'fanatics' for a time in order to achieve their goals.) Judging from the blogs I have read, running the gamut including Pagan, Christian and Humanist, I think that many people have figured the first part of this out. And I am glad of it.

What few officials discuss, however, is the attack on national sovereignty this piece of work actually is.

The document states: The Council also strongly urges States within the framework of their own legal and constitutional systems to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance.

In other words, the UN gets to tell other people what laws need to be enacted to make sure nobody picks on Muslims. We do not get to keep our own constitutions, unless of course they make the right provisions.

Then, the document 'urges States to closely control all public officials including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, so that in the course of their official duties, they respect different religions … and that training is provided to this effect.'

In other words, making stupid, unenforceable documents like the UN Resolution are not acceptable on a national level. Actual nation-states are supposed to create or train a thought police.

It is non-binding, of course. However, everyone knows that on the world stage, once the UN speaks people are expected to listen. And they have started to do so.

- Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two
Canadian Human Rights Commissions of vague allegations of "subjecting Canadian
Muslims to hatred and contempt" for comments in his book, "America Alone"
- In the United Kingdom, police announced plans to arrest a bloggers for
"anti-Muslim" statements.
- In the United States, a plaintiff sued his Internet service provider for refusing "to prevent participants in an online chat room from posting or submitting harassing comments that blasphemed and defamed plaintiff's Islamic religion."
(source)

The US needs to kick the UN off US soil and withdraw. Unfortunately, unless more people think like Ron Paul, it will not happen.

Sources for further reading:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/hrcn1082.doc.htm (the original document)

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13958&Cr=religion&Cr1= (Un Press Release)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69163 (WorldNet Daily Article)

https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE0807017&SC=3359 (American Center for Law and Justice Petition ot the UN)

http://www.iheu.org/node/2816 (international humanist and Ethical Union Article)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/un-resolution-protects-only-islam-from-defamation (Sweetness and Light - Scroll down to the "Ask the Imam" section, where an Imam describes what "Freedom of expression" and "Freedom of Religion" means in an Islamic State)

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1170874980.shtml (Interesting political theory about this topic)

http://www.aina.org/news/2008079165111.htm (The Assyrian take on it)

Another Threat to Sovereignty

It seems that our fearless leaders who hang out around the beltway seem to believe that it's not a good thing to be a US citisen anymore. It's far better, evidently, to be subject to a universal, world organisation. And they haven't even chosen or invented a good one to hand national sovereignty to, they've decided the United Nations is the one world organisation of choice.

I could give reasons based on creditials alone as to why this particular body would not be a good choice even if forking over national sovereignty actually WAS a good idea. Honestly, has this body ever done anything right? Where are the WMD that the UN was supposedly wanting to monitor in Iraq? The UN never said they were disappearing, they just whined what they couldn't look at them. UN sanctions against "rogue nations" have never worked. The body is rife with scandal, mismanagement and violations of it's own laws. It sucks up money from it's members (or the ones who pay them anyway) and deliver very little back to them. WHO ON EARTH would want this brain trust in charge of anything!!

However, that's not what has me irritated. I don't believe forking over national sovereignty is a good idea in the first place. I have several fairly old articles posted explaining how things related to the UN undermine said sovereignty. These would be CEDAW, , the creation of world heritage sites , Conference on Human Settlements , the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. These articles explain in detail why each of these things are a bad idea and what it would mean to the United States if they were applied to citisens here. And just because I've not said anything at Screw the UN recently does not mean threats have disappeared. They haven't.

Today's threat Du Jour...H.R. 2421, "Clean Water Restoration Act." But wait, isn't that federal legislation, not a UN treaty? Oh, but don't run off so fast, lately things are never what they seem. According to this Act, water is very important. (Um, duh.) This legislation claims to Sounds good so far. It protects intrastate waters and "OTHER WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES." (always get suspicious of government paperwork which has the word "other" in it. It's a frivolous term used to mean "everything else I can think of" or "whatever we decide later") The legislation does attempt to define these "other waters" and here is what our hacks have come up with...

"All waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and
all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes,
rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all
impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or
activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of
Congress under the Constitution."

Now, what word DON'T you see in this lovely masterpiece of legal mumbo jumbo? Well I suppose fishtank isn't in there and neither is bathtub, but those aren't what I was thinking about. The important word missing is "navigable." See, water that can't support ships and stuff has always been the property owner's property to do with what he or she likes, that's the way previous legislation has always defined it. Standing water, farm ponds, sink holes and such are automatically private property cause, well you can't run a ship through it.

This bill has nothing to do with making sure we have safe drinking water for all the people and animals that depend on it. It's about restricting land use. It used to be said that if a person had a large puddle on their property and the government wanted your land it would be labelled a "wetland" and had to be protected...Now the government doesn't need to contort itself that much. Your mud puddle, creek, personal swamp, whatever, are "other waters of the United States."

Now, in case you think you're lost, you're really not. So far I have not mentioned the UN. This, so far, has ended State Sovereignty and Private Property rights if the government so chooses to exercise the power vested in this abominable legislation. That is bad enough. However, there is more.

There is the "LAW OF THE SEA TREATY." (aka as LOST). The Law of the Sea Convention is a set of rules for the use of the world’s oceans, which cover 70 percent of the earth’s surface and a treaty resulted in 1982. To date 154 countries and the European Community have joined. So far the US has not joined this treaty. At the time Reagan was in power and refused to sign the abomination. He even fired people for suggesting he do so. Eventually Clinton did sign it, but the Senate has refused (so far) to ratify it.

If we did we would be subject to the UN Court and UN rules about various things including fishing, environmental protections, and navigation. IF the US Senate ratifies LOST and HR 2421 kicks in, the United Nations will in effect have jurisdiction over our private property. Remember how inclusive the "other waters of the United States" can be. You really want some uneducated nutcase from some minor third world nation telling you what to do with the sink hole in your backyard?

The UN World Heritage Sites Violate National Sovereignty

Did you know that there are several "World Heritage Sites" in the U S? And if you did, would you have any idea how dangerous this is to US Sovereignty?

If you are like most people, you probably never even thought about it, and if you did you thought that this UN designation would be good for tourism and historical preservation of many national treasures. ANd that is how they get away with it.

According to the UN World Heritage Operational Guidelines, "The cultural heritage and the natural heritage are among the priceless and irreplaceable possessions, not only of each nation, but of mankind as a whole. The loss, through deterioration or disappearance, of any of these most prized possessions constitutes an impoverishment of the heritage of all the peoples in the world. Parts of that heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be considered to be of outstanding universal value and as such worthy of special protection against the dangers which increasingly threaten them."

This sounds innocuous on the surface of it, doesn't it? The UN does not directly control how the sites are maintained, and it never has done. The problem with the program is it's link to various treaties and agreements which would destroy the fabric of US sovereignty should congress ever ratify them. These treaties provide partnerships and other forms of cooperation between the US and the UN which gives the UN influence over US policies. This is in direct violation of the US constitution. ANd I'm not just paranoid. Here is an example.

In 1995, the Dept of the Interior decided it would be a good thing for the World Heritage Committee to Visit Yellowstone, in order to declare it a World Heritage Site...In Danger. The designation "IN DANGER" would then mandate the US to correct whatever put the Park in danger or face world scorn as the site gets removed from the list of Heritage Sites. Only the World Heritage Committee can remove this designation, and in order to do so, the US would have to abide by the UN recommendations, thus giving up our right to determine how our land and historical sites are to be preserved. Indirectly then the US has to give up it's rights to govern itself.

Some great, politically minded muckity muck (or probably quite a few of them) has decided that this sort of thing is for the greater good of society in the US. It is, however, a very dangerous precident. ANd there is more...

Like the topic of Buffer Zones...

According to Paragraph 44b of the Operational Guidelines for this program these buffer zones "Should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of outstanding universal value in order to protect the site...from direct human encroachment and impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area. The boundaries of the nominated site may coincide with one or more existing or proposed protected areas, such as national parks or biosphere reserves."

As is the case with most things in the US, the lands surrounding these World Heritage Sites are private property, which then leads to the federal government needing to control how the land outside the sites are used, in direct violation of the private property clauses of the US Constitution. In the case of Yellowstone, the feds wanted a gold mine to be halted, and it used the "IN DANGER" designation of Yellowstone to prevent it. Any land directly outside of Yellowstone is in danger of federal infringement due to the designation of the park. Such federal control of the land is in direct contradiction of the Constitution and the intention of the Founding Fathers. I could, if I were to travel so far, hear Jefferson rolling over in his grave.

Ok, so some environmental nuts prevented a gold mining operation, big fat hairy deal right? No so fast, lets look at what has been done in other countries. In Australia, this dude had a farm which included a small piece of rainforest (I didn't know there were rain forests in Austrailia, learn something new every day). He'd also preserved some ancient trees, which was a very nice thing to do, no doubt. However, the government found out and decided they wanted his land too, these types of trees had somehow disappeared from government protected property. They didn't ask for seeds, or cuttings, or to transplant the trees, no, they had to have the land too.

Austrailia is a signatory on the WHC treaty too, and the wet tropics became protected by the U N in 1988. Environmentalists counted and catalogued the trees and plants in and around this poor fellow's property. Despite the landowner's protest, the World Heritage Adminstrators claimed control of his land. He tried working with the agencies to preserve these plants, but apparently his small orchard adjacent to the forest somehow endangered the rain forest and his little orchard was regulated away. Finally he just couldn't take it anymore and sold what limited rights he did have to someone else who wanted to sponsor ecotourism.

See, the UN seems to think that the private citisen has no idea how to properly care for land and has no basic rights to property. Inevitably this belief will clash with the US Constitution and our rights to private property and freedom from interference. It's just what is going to happen, and someone should have pointed this out years ago. In the 1970s when this abomination called a treaty was signed.
Just another reason the US needs to get out the UN.

Lady Raven

----------
Oh, and here's the proper documentation, so you can see for yourself:
UNSECO WHSites Operational Guidelines http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines
RE Yellowstone: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/wildlandtom.htm
Re the Austrailian Farmer: http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/whpwans97.html#anchor1035023