Thoughts on Syria… From All Sides

This Is About Destroying Sovereignty’: Beck Examines Potential Syria Strike Through the Eyes of a ‘Radical Leftist’

Many have been alarmed by the rapid escalation in Syria this week after years of horrific violence. With the reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, U.S. officials say America could begin missile strikes within the week.

But why now? What exactly do we hope to achieve?

(Photo: TheBlaze TV)

Glenn Beck tackled the issue on his television program Wednesday evening, arguing that the focus of the administration may not be on the war itself — but on the subsequent layout of the world.

“This administration knows that we are on the brink of World War III. The global economy is fragile, global stability is weak, the west is on the edge, it’s only a matter of time before it crumbles,” he said. “Iran will eventually lose any remaining restraint and go after Israel, Syria starts spilling across the border… When it all falls apart and the west is so weakened, who puts it all back together again?”

“War is — after a long period of just running things into the ground — war makes the people of the world forget what the world was like before the war,” Beck continued. “Beyond that, history shows us that war also changes all the players. It changes borders, it changes everything…”

He speculated that after a period of violence, we will “gather at the U.N. because we have to stop an international crisis, and everything is teetering on the edge, and people will cry out, ‘stop the madness!’ And so we do, the international way.”

If we’re not listening to China now, Beck said he guarantees we’ll listen to them at the bargaining table, and we’ll concede. If they say, for instance, we’ll forgive your debts if you just sign the U.N. Arms Treaty, we will.

“This is about destroying sovereignty,” Beck asserted. “The United Nations will, in the end, broker the deal, making them the new superpower and making us just one of the guys. That’s what everybody wants, for the United States just to be average, just like everybody else…”

Considering alternate explanations, Beck said he can think of “a million reasons” why we shouldn’t intervene, “and not one why we should.”

Intervention, he said, will further destabilize Syria, further destabilize the region, and will likely impact our gas prices and the stock market.

If we are intervening purely for humanitarian purposes, why didn’t we intervene sooner? Why don’t we intervene in other cases of mass slaughter? And if the tipping point is truly chemical weapons, Beck asked if you trust the intelligence community more or less than the last time they claimed there were weapons of mass destruction?

Remember the guy who cut his enemy’s heart out and ate it, Beck added? “We’re on his side now.”

The list goes on, Beck said, including the financial cost of the endeavor and the possibility of dragging us into another war we don’t have the energy or resources for.

“Syria is not about teaching Assad a lesson. Two days of bombing probably won’t even seem out of place in Syria today, unfortunately,” he concluded. “Syria is not a response to the shock and horror of murder — hundreds of thousands have died… Syria is this — it is a sick opportunity for the globalist progressive revolutionaries in our own administration and all around the globe to remold the world closer to their heart’s desire.”

Beck - Syria Intervention

Video: Glenn Beck: Intervention In Syria Will Establish One World Government - New World Order

8/28/13 - Glenn Beck says the threat of military action against Syria is part of a plot by global progressives to allow the UN to establish peace and avert WWIII and create a One World Government. 

Video:  George Galloway Explosive Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria

August 29, 2013 - George Galloway Explosive Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria

'Me And My Big Mouth' - UK's Cameron Backs Off From Syria Attack

The French Bow Out Of Syria Strike

And Russia Calls For Urgent UN Security Council Meeting

Some more from BBG:

• RUSSIA CALLED FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING, DIPLOMAT
• 5 PERMANENT COUNCIL MEMBERS U.K., U.S., FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA
• FIVE PERM. SEC. COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MEET AT 2:30P

Hopefully Putin doesn't whip out incontrovertible proof the chemical gas attack was linked to Al Qaeda, Qatar... and the US of course.

Two Minds on Syria

The New Yorker: So it looks like we’re going to bomb Assad.

Good.

Really? Why good?

Did you see the videos of those kids? I heard that ten thousand people were gassed. Hundreds of them died. This time, we have to do something.

Yes, I saw the videos.

And you don’t want to pound the shit out of him?

I want to pound the shit out of him.

But you think we shouldn’t do anything.

I didn’t say that. But I want you to explain what we’re going to achieve by bombing.

We’re going to let Assad know that chemical weapons are over the line. There’s a reason they’ve been illegal since Verdun or whenever.

Except when Saddam used them against the Kurds—we knew, and we didn’t say a word.

Is that a reason to let Assad use them against his people?

At this point, I don’t think Assad is too worried about the Geneva Conventions.

He should have to think hard before using them again.

He’s a bloody dictator fighting for survival. He’s going to do whatever he has to do.

Not if we really hurt him. Not if we pound his communications centers, his air-force bases, key government installations. He’ll be more likely to survive if he doesn’t use chemical weapons.

Killing civilians while we’re at it.

These would be very specific targets.

The wrong people always get killed.

Maybe. Probably. But if you were a Syrian being bombed by Assad every day, trying to keep your head down and your family alive, wouldn’t you want the world to respond, even if a few more people die? I think so.

Easy for you to say.

Hey, can we not personalize this?

Weren’t you just saying that I don’t care about dying children? (Pause.) So you want us to get involved in their civil war.

I’m not saying that.

But that’s what we’ll be doing. Intervening on the rebel side, tipping the balance in their favor.

Not necessarily. We’ll be drawing a line that says dictators don’t get to use W.M.D.s without consequences.

You can’t bomb targets on one side of a civil war without helping the other side.

It would be very temporary. We’d send Assad a clear message, and then we’d step back and let them go on fighting. We’re not getting involved any deeper than that, because I know what you’re going to say—

The rebels are a bunch of infighting, disorganized, jihadist thugs, and we can’t trust any of them.

I’m not saying we should.

And what do we do if Assad retaliates against Israel or Turkey? Or if he uses nerve gas somewhere else?

We hit him again.

And it escalates.

Not if we restrict it to cruise missiles and air strikes.

Now you’re scaring me. Have you forgotten Iraq?

Not for a single minute.

My point is that you can’t restrict it. You can’t use force for limited goals. You need to know what you’ll do after his next move, and the move after that.

It only escalates if we allow ourselves to get dragged in deeper. Kosovo didn’t escalate.

This isn’t Kosovo. The Syrian rebels aren’t the K.L.A. Assad isn’t Milosevic. Putin isn’t Yeltsin. This is far worse. Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate. That’s not going to happen in Syria.

You think Putin is going to risk a military confrontation with the U.S. and Europe?

I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August, 1914.

That was a hundred years ago. Stop with the historical analogies.

You’re the one who brought up Verdun. And Kosovo.

I brought up Kosovo because you brought up Iraq. That’s the problem with these arguments. Iraq! Vietnam! Valley Forge! Agincourt! People resort to analogies so they don’t have to think about the matter at hand.

And because they don’t know anything about the matter at hand.

I know what I saw in those videos.

Thank God Obama doesn’t make foreign policy that way. He knows what he doesn’t know about Syria. He’s always thinking a few steps ahead. He’s not going to get steamrolled by John McCain and Anderson Cooper.

At a certain point, caution is another word for indecisiveness. Obama looks weak! Or worse—indifferent. Anyway, he should have thought ahead when he called chemical weapons a “red line.” He set that trap a year ago, and now we’re in it.

Why does it have to be a trap?

Because our credibility is on the line.

Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.

See, that’s another thing people do in these arguments.

What?

“You sound like so-and-so.” It shouldn’t matter who else is on your side. I mean, you’re in bed with Rand Paul. Anyway, credibility matters even if Kissinger said so. You have to do what you say you’re going to do, especially with bullies.

I don’t think Obama committed himself to any one course of action. But if he does bomb them, we’re involved in that war, and I sure hope his advisers have thought through all the potential consequences better than you have.

Inaction has consequences, too. Assad gases more people, the death toll hits two hundred thousand, the weapons get into Hezbollah’s hands, Iran moves ahead with its nuclear program, the Syrian rebels disintegrate and turn to international terrorism, the whole region goes up in sectarian flames.

And how does firing cruise missiles at Damascus prevent any of this?

It doesn’t. But, look, all of this is already happening with us sitting it out. If we put a gun to Assad’s head, we might be able to have more influence over the outcome. At least we can prevent him from winning.

A violent stalemate. How wonderful for the Syrians. Some people think that’s the best solution for us.

I’m not saying that.

What are you saying?

I don’t know. I had it worked out in my head until we started talking. (Pause.) But we need to do something this time.

Not just to do something.

All right. Not just to do something. But could you do me a favor?

What’s that?

While you’re doing nothing, could you please be unhappy about it?

I am.

___

Above: photo authenticated based on its contents and other A.P. reporting, Syrians inspect buildings damaged by heavy shelling from Syrian government forces in Aleppo, on Monday, August 26th. Aleppo Media Center AMC/AP

Video: Daily State Department Press Briefing FULL. 8/28/2013  

Video: "IT'S NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!" Pentagon Sounding Kinda Defensive About Their Syria Intel 

Video: John Bolton with Greta Van Susteren slams Obama - President needs a character transplant to work effectively on Syria

And after all of this… Obama Threatens To Go It Alone On Syria

Ah, yes...President Obama is steaming mad since the Brits and French backed out of his little Syrian adventure, and he saying he's fully prepared to go it alone.

He even sent another American ship towards Syria, a destroyer escort.The Russians already have a fleet of warships headed that way.

Remember what our Dear Leader and his minions said in 2007 and 2008 about 'Cowboy' Bush? Remember the horse manure about "meeting the global Test" and the Magic Wisdom of the International Community?

Biden 2007

Video:  Here is Senator Joe Biden: Iran & Impeachment – Biden Saying If “W” Didn’t Get Congressional Approval Before Going to War He’d Seek Impeachment… and Senator Obama Agreed

So what happened?  There is very little support by Americans to enter the Syrian Civil War… In a new HuffPo poll, conducted after U.S. officials claimed Syria's government killed thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, shows 25 percent of Americans now support air strikes to aid rebels in Syria, while 41 percent said they are opposed. Another 34 percent said that they're not sure.  Germany I also a thumbs down along with Britain and France.

The only logical conclusion is that the truth about the scandals Obama is attempting to divert attention from, by getting involved in Syria, are probably a lot worse than any of us thought.  Time for more investigation!!

You be the judge…  By Marion Algier – AskMarion~

Technorati Tags: One World Government,Joe Biden,Double Standards,Great Britain,Middle East,watch the other hand,Beck,Glenn Beck,Fox,Fox News,NWO,you be the judge,globalism,Syria,WWIII,War,Iran,Britain,France,Ambassador John Bolton,Greta Van Susteren,red lines

Obama: The UN’s True Believer

Anything so as not to appear to be like George Bush.

That was the not-so-hidden theme of President Barack Obama’s speech on Libya last Monday. In his first crack at his predecessor, Obama defended his decision to not expand the American mission in Libya by saying “we went down that road in Iraq.” In another, an allusion to the superiority of his approach to foreign affairs over that of Bush’s, Obama stressed the fact he was acting in Libya out of humanitarian motives and on the basis of a United Nations (UN) mandate (Bush did not obtain one for his Iraq invasion).

”The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya,” Obama said. “At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No-Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.”

But while Obama is priding himself on not being like George Bush, the current president’s well-known penchant for multilateral action abroad and for putting American interests and foreign policy in the hands of international bodies is turning out to be a disaster for everyone involved, especially for the Libyans. In the end, American reliance on the UN to determine its foreign policy will ultimately wind up costing more money and lives than a quick and massive, unilateral NATO invasion. At the other end of the scale, negotiations and no intervention would have even been more preferable.

Obama stated the UN established the No-Fly Zone to protect Libyans from Gaddafi and proudly said in his speech NATO warplanes prevented a massacre in Benghazi, which the Libyan dictator’s troops were poised to overrun two weeks ago. While this is true, Obama failed to mention that it took three weeks to get that mandate, during which time Gaddafi’s troops ousted most of the rebel forces from Western Libya.

Before their ouster, the rebels occupied towns and cities as close as 30 kilometres to Tripoli. A quick intervention by NATO ground troops to bolster rebel positions, or the threat to do so, would have seen Gaddafi’s small army confined to the Tripoli area. Military force is the only thing a nasty bully like Gaddafi appears to understand. George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, for example, caused the Libyan leader to give up his weapons of mass destruction program, since Gaddafi was afraid he would be next.

But during this wait for UN approval for action, the Libyan dictator captured the rebel-held areas in Western Libya, after which he sent in his secret police to hunt down rebel supporters. The resulting death toll is unknown. The hunt for rebel sympathizers continued as his forces advanced into rebel-held Eastern Libya. After their retreat, several hundred people were listed as missing by the Libyan Red Crescent. In a dozen cases, Human Rights Watch reports “government forces answered the mobile phone of the missing person.” Gaddafi’s “campaign of killing”, which Obama said the UN-mandated bombing stopped, continues.

Ironically, to end the violence and the killing, Obama’s current proposed plan entails violating the UN mandate he is so proud of having brought about. But Obama would never admit he is doing so, since the UN is sacrosanct among leftists, and he would also be acting, once again, like George Bush in his unwillingness to be bound by the UN’s restrictions (Obama has previously said he wants Gaddafi gone, but regime change is also not part of the UN mandate).

This latest mandate violation concerns the proposed plan under consideration by Obama and NATO to arm and train the rebel force, which has proven woefully inadequate in battle against Gaddafi’s troops. But Paragraph 9 of UN Resolution 1970, which establishes sanctions against Libya, unambiguously states: “… all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply … to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Republic)… of arms and related materials of all types…”  Arming the rebels would therefore be illegal.

However, in a contortion worthy of Houdini, Hillary Clinton says Paragraph 4 of UN Resolution 1973 allows arms shipments to the rebels. But if so, this passage, which only mentions “necessary measures,” says this is to happen only if civilians are “under threat of attack.” If Gaddafi pulls back to Western Libya and allows the war to settle into a stalemate, then there is no legal justification for the Obama administration to pursue this policy. Moreover, arming and training the rebels will be very expensive and lead to more violence and death in a protracted struggle.

Other dangers also exist in giving the rebels weapons. A justifiable fear exists the United States would be arming hardcore Islamists among their number who would one day turn their guns against the West, which speaks against the plan. Also speaking against the plan is the fact the rebels want to kill Gaddafi and his supporters, tribal or otherwise, which is the main reason for his fierce resistance. A warning against such massacres was issued to the rebels this week, and such admonitions usually do not arise in a vacuum.

Rebel massacres with American-supplied weapons would undoubtedly not look good on the White House, especially after the UN resolution Obama sponsored to protect Libyan civilians. Such a horrific development would be particularly embarrassing for the president who said in his Monday speech: “The United States is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” In this case, his shipping arms to the rebels may actually result in such slaughter and mass graves.

Like with Tunisia and Egypt, the Obama administration appears not to have had any prepared policy regarding an uprising in Libya, proving once again it is reactive rather than proactive and deeply over its head in the foreign affairs field. Relying on UN resolutions to determine American action in Libya is producing a worse-case scenario: a long, expensive and exhausting conflict with a large number of civilian casualties, which the “historic Resolution” and American air intervention were meant to prevent. It is a scenario that may yet require American soldiers, despite the president’s and Defense Secretary Robert Gate’s denials, if Gaddafi threatens to overrun Eastern Libya again.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com  -  URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/01/obama-the-un%e2%80%99s-true-believer/

Who is Barack Obama?  -  A Terrifying Analysis – Israel Commentary

U.N. Admits at Least $600G Lost on Overpriced Boat that Housed Haiti Peacekeepers

So $62,590,000 has been spent to kill people without the consent of Congress:  At least 110 Tomahawk Missiles Fired at Libya by US  -  Editor’s Note: Each Tomahawk missile costs $569,000.

One World Government Obama

By Ben Stein – American Spectator 

Maybe I missed something, but wasn't that The Constitution of the United States of America that we just laid to rest this weekend?

It was buried in a private ceremony by Mr. Barack Obama of Chicago as he silently signed America on to the One World Government some of us have been worried about for decades.

Look at it this way: Where did Mr. Obama get the authority to commit United States forces to war in Libya? There was no declaration of war. There was no authorizing resolution by Congress allowing money to be spent on a war against Col. Gaddafi. As far as I know, there was no meeting of Mr. Obama and top leaders of Congress to discuss the subject in even rough form, let alone detail. There was no lengthy buildup in which the Congress was "allowed" to express the people's opinion on whether we want to be in a third concurrent war.

There was just a vote by the United Nations Security Council, a very far from unanimous vote, and suddenly, the President's Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, solemnly announced that we were at war.

But, when did we amend the Constitution to declare that the United Nations had control over our military? When did we abolish the part of the Constitution that said Congress had the right to declare war? Now, I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don't have declarations of war. But we have Congressional  debates. We have funding votes. We have a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution.

This time, zip. Nada. Nothing. Just France and the U.K. and Norway saying that it's time to go to war, and off America goes to war. And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a South American "fact finding" trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing junket for the Obama girls.

(I wonder if there has ever before in history been a national leader who sent his country to war -- and the same day went off on vacation. Has that ever happened before? )

Something's missing here. Libya and Col. Gaddafi were and are no threat to the United States. It is sad and cruel that the Gaddafi regime was murdering its own civilians, but so do many governments all across the world, including North Korea, Iran, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. Are we going to war with all of them, now?

Meanwhile, again, what the heck happened to the Constitution? Is this Mr. Obama's legacy to our children? The junking of the Constitution in the middle of the night and the turnover of our sovereignty to the United Nations? (By the way, this is the same UN where Libya until recently sat on the Commission on Human Rights.) Why aren't any questions being asked? Is the Constitution that meaningless to us? Are we that pitiful now? Are we willing to toss overboard the Constitution for the writ of the United Nations? I guess so. Sad days.

Obama’s Foolish Unconstitutional War

Time for Impeachment Hearings?

PAT BUCHANAN: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 — the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

Obama did win the support of Gabon in the Security Council, but failed with Germany. With a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil, Russia, India or China. All four abstained.

This is not the world’s war. This is Obama’s war.

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.

“To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,” said Vice Adm. William Gortney.

“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.

In his Friday ultimatum, he said, “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.”

Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi’s compound?

So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck Libya that the Arab League is bailing out. League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss attacks that have “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians.” We asked for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the “bombardment of civilians.”

What caused Obama's about-face from the Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone on Libya was an unwise act of war?

According to The New York Times, National Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N. envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.

They did not want to be seen as standing by when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.

While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome. No question who wears the pants here.

As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama and NATO.

Hence, we must now finish him and his regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.

The Arab League and African Union are denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For eastern Libya provided more than its fair share of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.

Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S. intervention to prevent "unspeakable atrocities," security police of Yemen's President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran, would U.S. protests have been so muted?

In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.

This crackdown on Bahrain's Shia has been denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world, ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.

Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and in Iraq after the Americans ousted the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.

They are a majority in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.

Riyadh must have regarded the threat to Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.

Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans — a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America.

By Patrick Buchanan at the Creators Syndicate, a collection writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com

Are We Heading Toward A One World Government? An Interesting Warning…

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

I believe the signs only point to the sad end game of one world domination. Look at all of the crazy legislation that is being authored. These bills include gun restriction (HR2159) that is getting tighter by the bill, complete farm/food production take over (HR875), complete internet take over (S773), production and energy use take over (HR2454), Water take over (streams, ponds, lakes, etc…) (S787). There are more where these came from. If you read in to any of these dishonestly named bills, you will see plenty of creepy entries that allow the government to take control at anytime they see fit.

We are sinking deeper into the UN, which is a fraud and as corrupt as the day is long. Obama is calling for a one world financial order. Many past presidents have used very similar terminology as we have crept this insidious direction.

Have you ever thought, “why would the powers that be want to take guns away?” or “Why do politicians want to make gun ownership harder and more expensive?”. Common sense tells us that criminals are never effected by such laws. Only those honest and law abiding citizens will be rendered unarmed and possible victims. There is a reason the powers that be want us unarmed.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing
~ Adolf Hitler

Disarming Americans is one of the UN and the Obama Administration’s top priorities.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

G. Edward Griffin understands the state we now find ourselves:

NRA Alert: UN Doomsday Treaty With Ginny Simone

STOP Lautenberg's Attorney General Gun Grab

Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Full Article: Obama Lies: Supports Lautenberg Gun Ban

Related:

It Is Not About Duck Hunting... It is About All of Our Rights to Protect Ourselves From All of You (Talking to the Congressional Committee) Up There!! ... Suzanna Gretia-Hupp - Video

Gun Rights Alert

Great Deal From Glenn Beck

OathKeepers – Not On Our Watch!

So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!

Remember, “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
Vladimir Lenin - Make sure the man with the gun is you!!