INTERNATIONAL U.N.

Is This Document The Smoking Gun Of The United Nations’ Disarmament Plan For America?

 

Is This Document The Smoking Gun Of The United Nations’ Disarmament Plan For America?

The internet has been on fire about this “Disarmament Commission – Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group” document that has been floating around social media sites. There have been many reporters “claiming” this document is a fraud. I would like to dig a little deeper to see if they are possibly spreading disinformation in order to calm down the American people, or are they telling the truth?

According to Politifact: The document is persuasive enough to have been picked up by pro-gun advocates on a few message boards and Facebook pages.

But is it real? When we checked with the United Nations, a spokesman declared it a fake. “I checked the document number on our internal document system, and the reply I got back now was simply, ‘There is no document matching your request,’ said Farhan Haq, associate spokesperson for the Secretary-General. “The document number (A/CN.11/L.72) doesn’t conform to our standard system, in any case.”

In addition, Haq said, “there is no such body as a ‘Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group.’ Nor does the United Nations involve itself in confiscating weapons from member states.” Finally, Haq said, “the use of blue ink, some of the type font and the scanner icon in the bottom right-hand corner are not found in real U.N. documents.

So, in several different ways, this document is fake.” Our ruling A document found on the Internet and circulating via email and social media says that a United Nations working group has “adopted a proposed agenda” to enable member nations to “disarm civilians within their borders.” If the document were real, it would confirm the worst fears of those who fear a mass confiscation of handguns, hunting rifles and ammunition in the U.S. — but a United Nations spokesman cited several reasons for concluding that the document is a fake, including the fact that the study group referenced in the document does not exist. We rate the document Pants on Fire.



I would like to point out that according to the PolitiFact article:” Farhan Hag, associate spokesperson for the Secretary-General, said “The document number (A/CN.11/L.72) doesn’t conform to our standard system, in any case”.

But is this true? First we need to ask some very important questions. Is there a motive to lie? Are these statements posted on Politifact factual? Have these reporters been known for disinformation campaign’s before? What purpose could be obtained by covering up and spreading disinformation? Does UNODA have a history of “disarming citizens” in other countries? Are there ties to New York City?

Finally, is this document real? Yes, there is a motive to lie. By denying this UNODA “restricted” document, it buys the corrupt officials within our government and the United Nations more time for “damage control.” It is no secret that the United Nations has intentions to “disarm” the American people, nor is it a surprise that our government and Mainstream Media (paid off pundits) are covering up the fact our government is still working with the United Nations to implement UN Agenda 21 within the United States.

Our government knows if they do not use “damage control” that the American people will stand together, we will not tolerate this, and all their plans will be ruined. The Obama administration has been forcing UN Agenda 21 through the EPA “rules and guidelines” for years. We have also seen that ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability (formerly known as International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – the name has been changed to disguise what they are really doing) is the group used to manipulate “sustainable development” within local communities working their way around the nation. The “Disarmament Commission – Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group” simply confirms in black and white what have been reporting on and fighting against for years. Patriots within local communities have been fighting against the implementation of UN Agenda 21 for years. Congress voted against the implementation of UN Agenda 21 years ago, after seeing the “Wildlands Project Map”. The Obama administration pushes illegal “rules” via Executive Order bypassing congress, implementing UN Agenda 21, while establishing a globalist “genocidal” plan.

Have these reporters been known for disinformation campaigns before? Yes, actually they have been caught in many disinformation campaigns.

I am surprised that anyone still finds them credible. I have previously “debunked” propaganda that Politifact and The Washington Post put out to discredit Senator Rand Paul’s truthful statements about the danger of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty. See other examples: here and here. PolitiFact strongly supports Obama, leftist ideas, and lies on many occasions to cover for a political agenda.

Does it surprise anyone that once again Politifact is pushing a “Media Psyop” in order to protect this administration’s ultimate agenda? In the search for truth I will pick apart quotes to see if it actually lines up with what is being said by the document. First, let us see if there are any document numbers, or comparisons that can be made through other UNODA documents that would confirm and show these numbers are consistent with numbers used by the UNODA “Disarmament Commission.” United Nations General Assembly Disarmament Commission Substantive Session in New York, April 1-19 2013. This document is numbered (A/CN.10/L.70). If you scroll down to the bottom of this document you can see the bar code numbers as well. Which amazingly, surprise the bar-codes match the (A/CN.11/L.72) “Disarmament Commission – Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group” bar code. Bar Code number is “12-53542 (E) 091012″. Thus showing that these numbers are used, and also coincide with UNODA and United Nations actual documents.

Other examples of comparable numbers can be found here. Does UNODA have a history of “disarming citizens” in other countries? Are there ties to New York City? The answer is yes on both counts. Take a lookhere. You will also find another branch out of UNODA is called “UNLIREC” which has also been used to disarm citizens around the world in the name of “safety”. The Official Website will show you they not only confiscate small weapons but destroy these small arms as well.

In conclusion there is enough evidence to suggest this document is the real deal. It is my strong opinion this document should be investigated by the congressional oversight committee. If this document is legitimate and we fail to act upon it, then we have allowed our country to be destroyed because we choose to believe known “propaganda” news agencies. If it is not legitimate then at least we did our duty of due diligence. While I can not confirm 100% percent that this is an original document. If we do not require an investigation into this document, and it is legitimate, we have allowed ourselves to be complicit with the destruction of America as well as humanity. It is our duty and responsibility to demand a serious investigation to get to the truth.

Click here to contact your representatives and request they look into this document. Editor’s Note: As Lorri points out, there is much in the document that can be compared to the UN’s history of weapons confiscation across the globe. She does leave the possibility open that the document could be fraudulent. With that in mind, I had a friend, who works with imaging software and the creation of videos. It is his opinion that the document is forged, due to various anomalies in the document image. In either case, judge for yourselves whether or not the UN has worked this way in the past and whether or not other news sources have been complicit in covering up the truth.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/is…n-for-america/

 

By Lorri Anderson

 

 

 

 

 

Religious & Civil Rights Groups Urge Obama to Sign Arms Trade Treaty

Written by 

On September 23, the General Assembly of the United Nations will convene to discuss global nuclear disarmament. It is a different type of disarmament, however, that has caught the attention of a group of leaders of national organizations.

In a letter to President Obama dated August 19, representatives of 33 national religious and civil rights groups urge the president to sign the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty “without further delay.”

At an earlier meeting of the General Assembly held April 2, delegates from 153 nations — including the United States — approved the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The aim of this international agreement is to outlaw the buying, selling, owning, or transfer by civilians of firearms and ammunition.

To date, the Obama administration has not signed the treaty. In a statement to The New American, a State Department spokesman said that Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama are anxious to sign the treaty and are waiting the approval of administration attorneys who are vetting the agreement.

The text of the letter encouraging President Obama to speed up the signing process is remarkable for its misstatement of critical provisions of the ATT, as well as for its disregard for the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment:

We congratulate your Administration for helping to successfully conclude negotiations for an effective global Arms Trade Treaty earlier this year. The U.S. decision to join other leading supporters of the ATT helped overcome the consensus-blocking actions of three states and was critical to securing the overwhelming support for the treaty at the UN General Assembly on April 2. With the process of conforming the Treaty text in various languages to be resolved this month, we urge the US government to emphatically throw its support behind the treaty with your signature at the United Nations in New York in September.

Your signature would be a powerful step demonstrating the United States’ commitment to preventing mass atrocities and protecting civilians from armed conflict around the globe. We also encourage you to make a strong, high-profile statement of the Treaty’s value for national and international security and human rights protection at time of signature.

The development of the Arms Trade Treaty was a historic achievement. Governments joined together and agreed to a plan that will, if implemented rigorously and universally, put an end to the irresponsible arms trade that fuels so much suffering in the world. The Arms Trade Treaty is a common sense agreement that will have positive impacts for US security and civilians living in the midst of armed conflict or unstable environments. Among other things, the Arms Trade Treaty prohibits arms transfer authorizations to states if the state “has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes.”

We urge you to seize the opportunity to sign as soon as possible in order to build momentum for additional signatures and rapid entry into force. If the United States clearly signals its intent to be bound by the Treaty, other countries currently sitting on the fence are more likely to follow.

Your Administration demonstrated leadership by supporting the Treaty through its development. Signing the Arms Trade Treaty will demonstrate strong US leadership and help create important momentum for the treaty.

We respectfully encourage you and your Administration to seize this historic opportunity and provide US signature on the Arms Trade Treaty this September.

The letter is signed by the following individuals on behalf of the organizations they represent:

Melanie Greenberg, president and CEO
, Alliance for Peacebuilding

Shan Cretin, general secretary, 
American Friends Service Committee

Eric Sapp, executive director, 
American Values Network

Frank Jannuzi, interim co-executive director, 
Amnesty International, USA

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director
, Arms Control Association

Sarah Holewinski, executive director
, Center for Civilians in Conflict

Stanley J. Noffsinger, general secretary, 
Church of the Brethren

Kathi Lynn Austin, executive director, 
Conflict Awareness Project

Alexander D. Baumgarten, director of government relations
, The Episcopal Church

John Bradshaw, executive director, 
Enough Project

Dennis W. Frado, director, Lutheran Office for World Community
, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Emira Woods, co-director
, Foreign Policy In Focus

Diane Randall, executive secretary, 
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Krista Hendry, executive director
, The Fund for Peace

Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president, 
Genocide Watch

Don Kraus, president & CEO
, Globalsolutions.org

Kenneth Roth, executive director, 
Human Rights Watch

Michael Christ, executive director, 
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Robert Naiman, policy director
, Just Foreign Policy

Gerry G. Lee, director, 
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

J. Ron Byler, executive director, 
Mennonite Central Committee U.S.

Galen Carey, vice president for government relations
, National Association of Evangelicals

Raymond C. Offenheiser, president
, Oxfam America

Hon. Ross Robertson, MP, president, 
Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA)

Patricia Chappell, SNDdeN, executive director
, Pax Christi USA

Jon Rainwater, executive director
, Peace Education Fund

Catherine Thomasson, MD, executive director
, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Rev. Dr. J. Herbert Nelson, director, Office of Public Witness
Presbyterian Church (USA)

James E. Winkler, general secretary, General Board of Church and Society, 
The United Methodist Church

Mary-Frances Wain, deputy executive director, 
United Nations Association of the United States of America

Thomas H. Andrews, president and CEO, 
United to End Genocide

Bishop Richard E. Pates, chairman, Committee on International Justice and Peace, 
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Joy Olson, executive director, 
Washington Office on Latin America

While many names and groups in the list above are some of the usual suspects that constitutionalists would expect to be found in the ranks of those attacking the Second Amendment specifically and the Constitution in general, the participation of some of the more “mainstream” religious organizations is disturbing in light of the indisputable fact that a disarmed populace would be powerless to defend the very freedom that is our most valuable gift from God.

And, as we have reported, several provisions of this treaty significantly diminish the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.

First, the Arms Trade Treaty grants a monopoly over all weaponry in the hands of the very entity (approved regimes) responsible for over 300 million murders in the 20th century.

Furthermore, the treaty leaves private citizens powerless to oppose future slaughters.

Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”

This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

After creating this database, the federal government would be required under the provisions of Article 5(4) of the Arms Trade Treaty to “provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.”

That’s right. The UN treaty demands that the list of gun and ammunition owners not only be in the hands of our own government, but be sent to foreign regimes, as well. This provision would guarantee that should an American owner of a legally purchased firearm decide to emigrate, he will be on the radar of the ruling regime in his new home.

Americans are right to recognize this registry as the first step toward confiscation. Without such a registry, it would be impossible to monitor weapons transfers effectively because governments can’t track weapons exchanges and transfers unless they know who has them to begin with.

Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.

In very clear terms, ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by the United States would require that the U.S. government force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens would be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.

Section 4 of Article 12 of the treaty requires that the list be kept for at least 10 years.

Finally, the agreement demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”

As of press time, the White House had not issued a comment on the religious leaders’ letter pushing for prompt signing of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *