A headline blipped by this morning that I’m sure very few took note of, but it caught my attention big time. As Weasel Zippers astutely put it: “Nein, this could open the door for a UN blue beanie.” Indeed this does, because my friends, if they can put a foreign officer in charge of our troops there, what’s to stop them from doing it here?
A German Army brigadier general who recently served with NATO forces in Afghanistan is assuming duties as the chief of staff of U. S. Army Europe, the first time a non-American officer has held that position.
Brig. Gen. Markus Laubenthal, most recently the commander of Germany’s 12th Panzer Brigade in Amberg, and chief of staff of Regional Command North, International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan, will be stationed at USAREUR headquarters, Wiesbaden, Germany. He could report to duty as early as Monday.
Laubenthal also has served as military assistant to the deputy commander of operations and assistant chief of staff of operations for NATO forces in Kosovo.
As the major staff assistant to USAREUR commander Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, Laubenthal will synchronize the command’s staff activities much as American predecessors have in the past.
“This is a bold and major step forward in USAREUR’s commitment to operating in a multinational environment with our German allies,” said Campbell.
“U. S. and German senior military leaders have been serving together in NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan for years. Sustaining the shared capability from this experience will benefit both the U. S. and German armies,” said Campbell who has headed the Army’s largest and oldest overseas command since 2012.
This is a first, a big one. Never before has a non-American officer held the position of Chief of Staff of US Army Europe. It boggles the mind. So, let me get this straight… we fire our generals, gut our officers and then place a German in charge? WTH? Does anyone else see a problem here?
And it gets better… you know why we did this? To say we are sorry for spying on Germany. I kid you not. All this crap leads back to Snowden. The Administration is saying this appointment is a rare sign of cooperation following recent spying allegations. Oh, you bet it is. This is a brilliant maneuver to subvert our military command and it happened without so much as an ‘excuse me’ or a ‘by my way’ being ushered:
BERLIN—A German will for the first time become chief of staff of the U.S. Army in Europe, a sign of further cooperation between the two nations despite a chill caused by allegations of U.S. spying here.
Brig. Gen. Markus Laubenthal from Germany’s Bundeswehr will report to Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, the U.S. commander for U.S. Army Europe, known as USAREUR, with headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany.
“This is a bold and major step forward in USAREUR’s commitment to operating in a multinational environment with our German allies,” Gen. Campbell said.
The appointment of a German to the position has been several months in the making and is part of the U.S. Army’s strategy to internationalize the command of its overseas operations.
What it is, is a blatant move to allow foreign command and troops eventually to come to American soil. Yep, I said it and Americans better take note. This is a very bad development. What? Didn’t see this coming when Snowden landed on the scene? I did. And Merkel has communist underpinnings in her history and a disturbing bond with Russia. So, tell me again how this helps our national security? The only thing it helps is bringing the UN and NATO into our military’s midst and forcing us into a one world collaboration.
You want fundamental transformation? Look at the ongoing invasion across our Southern border… Look at foreign officers in charge of our troops… Look at Obama’s behind the scenes ties to our enemies and you will discern that where we are heading is very bad indeed. Why are our military officials silent on this? You took an oath, time to honor it. Obama and the US Army just opened the door to the vampiric UN — America do you really want those asshats on your soil?
Over the past few years I and many others in the Bay Area have been fighting against a plan that will socially reengineer our lives referred to as the One Bay Area Plan. It will transform the lives of over 9 million people and towns in 9 counties over the next 25 to 30 years into high density stack and pack housing next to mass transit all in the name of saving the planet and reducing GHGs (Green House Gases). Private property outside of city and county urban limit lines will be highly restricted and/or off limits as part of the first ever statewide re-wilding and corridor system in California is created. The crazy thing is no one seems to know about it. Bay Area residents and taxpayers have been kept out of the process. Most have never heard of the regional unelected bodies pushing these plans or the legislation we are now being asked to follow, but all will be affected by it in some way in the near future.
Although I will be focusing on the regional plan in the Bay Area this is happening all over the state and country under different names so don’t feel left out. I have done thousands of hours of research over the past few years and discovered the genesis of these plans and who is behind it. I am hoping that by providing the historical timeline and links to back up my findings that it will be clear that these plans are were not being pushed by the people of the Bay Area, the local municipalities or by state level mandates. These plans were hatched long before the state legislation was enacted by a small group of NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations), stakeholders, foundations and regional unelected bodies funded with tax payer money.
There are three main pieces of legislation that are being followed in California to complete the transformation and socially re-engineer our lives; SB375 (2008 Sustainable Communities Strategy), AB32 (2006 Global Warming Act) and AB2785 (2010 California Essential Habitat Connectivity Map). All of these bills were signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. The global warming bill calls for a reduction in GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. The SB375 bill links land use to transportation and specifies the majority of future construction be compact, high density, low income housing next to mass transit in order to force Californians out of their cars and single family homes to ostensibly reduce GHGs. AB2785 identifies (maps) an animal and vegetation corridor system throughout California, connecting large blocks of government regulated land through private property that must be taken in some way to complete the California Wildlands corridors. This map is most egregious in that it casually illustrates (with a sliding scale of less to more cost) how much it would cost our government (in terms of dollars, conservation easements, eminent domain, zoning to open space, etc) to take the land from private individuals in order to complete this map. California planning organizations are expected to use it in their planning for land use and transportation process. What people don’t realize is that this map is NOT about preserving land (Open Space) for the animals and plants. These land masses that are being set aside are being incorporated into giant land trusts for the purpose of selling carbon credits in the trillion dollar Cap n’ Trade scheme that recently started in this state. A few large land trusts and foundations will be the beneficiaries of this giant piggy bank. Here’s a list of land banks (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/catalogue/). The CARB board will be giving many of the credits away to preferred corporations and to entice cooperation in the program. This is a fraudulent pay to play scheme and giant land grab not an environmental initiative.
The few, regular citizens, who have found out about the One Bay Area plan were horrified and attended workshops and hearings in an attempt to stop this plan from being adopted. Where did this plan come from? And why are unelected regional agencies dictating how and where the people of the Bay Area will live in the future?
Over the years the two main bodies pushing this plan MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) have pointed the blame at either local jurisdictions or at state legislators as the responsible parties for this plan. At times they claimed this was an organic, bottom up plan that the local municipalities want and were asking them to implement. Then on other occasions they claimed they were only following state level mandates and that if we had a problem with this plan we should be taking it up with the legislators who voted for the bills. The truth is ABAG and MTC were behind this plan way before the legislation was enacted and have been quietly involved in the forming of this plan for almost 20 years and if you include international connections it is even longer (See U.C. Berkeley PhD. Judith Innes White Paper). ABAG led the effort and along with other agencies they engaged in backroom secret meetings, formed international alliances, regional compacts with stakeholders and NGOs in an effort to reach their goal of transforming our cities and towns into the United Nations vision of Sustainable Communities ultimately leading to the passage of AB32 (2006), SB375 (2008) and AB2785 (2010) legislation that codified this agenda in California. The following timeline will illustrate how this so-called regional plan came about and who is behind it. You will learn, as I did, that this plan is not a grassroots effort and was not originated at the state level. It is an international plan from the United Nations and is referred to globally as Agenda21 Sustainable Development.
These regional agencies are unconstitutional and the elected officials appointed to them have in my opinion violated Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution by joining an international alliance with ICLEI and should be at the very least investigated and/or abolished.
I have included links throughout so you can check the facts for yourself. This plan is being duplicated all over the country and the world, but the Bay Area is one of the four initial pilot programs within the U.S. The pilot areas were Denver , Atlanta , Chicago and the Bay Area. In my research I found a white paper about the Bay Area Alliance written by Judith Innes a PhD from UC Berkeley (white paper “Getting Serious about the Three E’s”). She followed the alliance process from 2004 to 2007 and validates my findings. She points out how flawed the process was with virtually no experts being used to prepare data and reports and how the stakeholder workshops were misleading and outcomes were controlled and predetermined.
1987 – The term “Sustainable Development” was adopted at the Brundtland Commission meeting in 1987 as part of the “Our Common Future” outcome document. The official definition of Sustainable Development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The term Sustainable Development encompasses three main principles; Equity, Environment and Economy. Economy is the key word used to describe replacing free market principles with PPPs (Public Private Partnerships). The Environment is used as catalyst for change and Equity describes the social and environmental justice and the redistribution of wealth. Not equal justice. Social equity is the driving factor to alter the function of law to impose social requirements replacing individual rights.
1990 -The United Nations accredited NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) ICLEI (International Council for Local and Environmental Initiatives) was founded in order to establish Agenda 21 campaigns throughout the globe. The ICLEI Charter/Constitution defines a world congress of mayors and elected officials working together with ICLEI serving as the international agent representing the members of the world congress throughout the globe. ICLEI serves as liaison between local governments and international governments. ICLEI members pay dues and must explicitly adopt the ICLEI Constitution which follows the 16 principles of the Earth Charter and a model of global governance. This international membership by cities and counties violates Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance , or Confederation… with a foreign power”. The ICLEI headquarters in North America is in Oakland , Ca. Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner founded ICLEI USA. ICLEI is responsible for injecting international climate, land use and other policies into local governments. Many cities, counties and regional bodies across the country are contracting with ICLEI.
1992 -UN Agenda21 Earth Summit hosted by Maurice Strong was held in Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . At this summit the term sustainable development was adopted as part of the global Agenda21 campaign. 178 nations pledged their support for Agenda21. President George Bush, Sr. signed on to this for the U.S. Although this is technically a non-binding soft law, since Congress did not ratify it, Agenda21 and Sustainable Development have been incorporated into every aspect of our government through Executive Orders, the EPA, ICLEI and other regulatory agencies, bodies, boards and commissions. (See also video: Nancy Pelosi sponsored H.Con.Res. 353 on Sustainable Development.)
1993 -President Clinton signs Executive Order 12852 creating the President’s Council for Sustainable Development affectively bypassing Congressional approval of Agenda21. This council was tasked with injecting Sustainable Development and Agenda21 into all levels of our government nationwide.
1996 - Richard Clarke, retired Chairman and CEO of PG&E and Michele Perrault, International V.P. of the Sierra club (both members of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development) present the idea of a regional sustainable development initiative to the ABAG general assembly and to other NGO’s and stakeholder groups.
- David Early, Urban Ecology publishes the Draft Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area— The Final Plan (1999) is the basis for the One Bay Area Plan.
1997 – ABAG and several dozen NGOs around the Bay Area sign a Compact forming the BAASC (Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities) (See Compact for Sustainable Bay Area). This document specifically states that MTC and ABAG as well as other groups joined forces to implement a regional plan for a Sustainable Bay Area. The document states “It is founded on the principle of the Three Es of Sustainable Development – prosperous Economy, quality Environment, and social Equity.” It also states “The Bay Area Alliance adopted the definition of sustainable development endorsed by the United Nations’ World Commission on Environment and Development.” And goes on to clearly point out “The Bay Area Alliance also operates within an international context. The Earth Charter Initiative (www.earth-charter.org) is an outgrowth of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and has many principles similar to the visions and commitments contained in this Compact.” Sunne McPeak represented the Business (Economy) side of the Alliance . Sunne McPeak also served on the ABAG board, Bay Area Council and she oversaw the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Department of Housing and Community Development, the California Housing Finance Agency, the Department of Real Estate and many others. She was a key player in pushing the SB375 legislation behind the One Bay Area plan.
1999 – Five regional agencies MTC, ABAG, BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) and RWQCD (Regional Water Quality Control Board) were working on Smart Growth Strategies
- The Bay Area region and the BAASC were selected as one of four regional pilots in the nation by the Partnership for Regional Livability, a consortium of major foundations and federal agencies dedicated to advancing sustainable development and smart growth.
– “Final Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area” is prepared by David Early of Urban Ecology (one of the original stakeholders in the Alliance ). David Early also founded DCE Planning, which currently consults with local cities and counties to ensure the implementation of the plan locally.
2000 – Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg launched SCOR (Speaker’s Commission on Regionalism) to promote regionalism and collaboration across California . Sunne McPeak representing the Bay Area Council and many of the BAASC, NGOs and stakeholders were part of this new group. The main purpose was to push for legislation institutionalizing regionalism throughout California . Sunne McPeak was also the ABAG President.
2001 – First Round of stakeholder workshops (approximately 1000 participants) from all 9 Bay Area counties. These meetings were mostly attended by ABAG and MTC officials, planners, developers and social / environmental justice advocates who were stakeholders in the BAASC.
2002 – Second Round of stakeholder workshops (approx. 1000 participants). Three Regional Scenarios are proposed (Central Cities, Network of Neighborhoods and Smarter Suburbs). The preferred scenario was Network of Neighborhoods. ABAG develops policy-based projections using the Smart Growth Scenario as a starting point.
- Publication of “Shaping Our Future” was the result of this coalition.
2003 – Executive Board adopts policy-based projections. Abandoning the trends based projection model used in the past. This approach forces development to occur based on the preferred land use and transportation scenario. MTC’s RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) is based on ABAG’s projections.
2005 – Governor Schwarzenegger passes Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHGs in California to 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
2006 – AB32 legislation passed - calls for a reduction in GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB (California Air Resources Board) is appointed to oversee and monitor state level GHGs.
2007 – California Center for Regional Leadership hosts a meeting where, then Assembly Member 11th District DeSaulnier (co-author of SB375 with Darrell Steinberg) and Van Jones both speak about pushing regional legislation. (http://calregions.urbaninsight.com/regcivic/bln/20071126/index.html)
– SB375 legislation introduced (Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier was one of the co-authors of SB375 with Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg). Mark DeSaulnier served on the following boards ABAG, MTC, CARB and BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) all proponents of this legislation.
2008 – SB375 legislation passed – Links land use to transportation. Directs regional agencies to create blueprints focusing development in PDAs (Priority Development Areas) next to mass transit for the purpose of reducing GHGs based on AB32 legislation.
2010 – AB2785 legislation passed – California Wildlands Act. The California Essential Habitat Connectivity report sponsored by DOT (Dept of Transportation), CalTrans and DFG (Dept of Fish and Game) shows many maps of the intended wildlife corridor system throughout California . This document is quietly being used by all planning, transportation agencies and commissions throughout California without the public’s knowledge.
As you can see the One Bay Area Plan did not originate as an organic bottom up plan, nor did it start with state level legislation. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development brought the idea to the regional agencies. The regional agencies then joined forces with local NGOs, stakeholders and foundations. The plan to socially re-engineer the Bay Area was going on long before the legislation (SB375, AB32 and AB2785) came to pass. This first ever regional plan in the Bay Area is scheduled to be adopted by the JPC (Joint Policy Committee) of MTC and ABAG in June of 2013 and when it does local jurisdictions will become virtually irrelevant. When money and power are concentrated at higher and higher levels by unelected regional boards bodies and commissions the end result is uncontrolled corruption. Someday the citizens of the Bay Area and California will wonder what happened to their beautiful unique towns and suburbs and go looking for answers. I’m hoping my research will give them the answers they seek and help them hold those behind this plan accountable.
I am a big fan of Glenn Beck’s books. His most recent,Agenda 21 by Glenn Beck with Harriet Parke, does not disappoint. The book is very well done, with a great plot and characters. It is realistic and disturbing. It’s a great read, but this first installment is a sobering look into what will transpire if we do not change course from the Progressive’s vision of our future.
The heroine of the story is Emmeline, who was about four years old when her parents were rounded up and placed in what can only be called an austere camp. A prison camp that is in the formation of a circle, where the homes are cinder block, with only a mat to sleep on and energy boards. Most were shot that would not go to the camps – some escaped and are referred to as the ‘shadow people.’ All tenants must earn their keep by producing energy for the collective. Producing children is required and the mother never holds her child. The state takes them immediately. Pairing is assigned. Nature and authority are the only things revered in this world. Meals are two cubes a day. Non-production is rewarded with death.
Think it can’t happen? Think again… Agenda 21 is very real as has been written about on this blog many times and it is spreading across the US. The Progressive Marxist elites will not stop until we are stacked and packed in hovels or trailers. They will take the land for themselves to create more wealth with carbon credits while we sweat and toil for them in ghettos.
Agenda 21 is a look into where this road leads. The ending of the book brings hope and definitely leaves it open for a sequel. I would recommend this book to everyone I know. You can’t fight your enemy, if you don’t know your enemy. And this is not about animals and plants; it’s about power, control and money.
A final note… Make sure you read the end of the book which gives research and facts on Agenda 21 and how to fight it in your communities. This is the fight of our lives. Take the fight to the Progressives, don’t wait until it comes to your doorstep.
You can get a copy of Agenda 21 at Amazon.com or at Glenn Beck’s web site. You should get several copies. I can’t wait for the sequel. Beck does it again with the help of Harriet Parke. Fantastic!!!
Where has the outrage been? Where was the fight? Where was the warning from all the gun groups… the GOP? The guardians for the Constitution? Keys to Liberty In the second session the United Nations Small Arms Treaty passes. It was obvious that it would, as Media Matters (George Soros) and Oxfam America Org. (Rockefeller Fund) have been silent on the issue for a few months after much promotion.
In the conference, the United States and Israel both agreed “they wished to disassociate themselves from preambular paragraph 11 of the Programme of Action, relating to the right to self-determination of people under foreign occupation”. This of course relates to Gaza and the West Bank as Israel believes Erez ‘Greater Israel’ belongs to them. It encompasses parts of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria.
Does the United States fully understand that the American people are also under a ‘foreign occupation” by a corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA located in Washington D.C.? Time to understand what a Letter Rogatory is, and how it can be filed within this corporate country.
It is interesting to note, the “delegations agreed to strengthen the action programme’s implementation at the national, regional and global levels over the period 2012-2018. On follow-up measures, they decided to hold a one-week biennial meeting of States in 2014 and 2016, and a one-week open-ended meeting of governmental experts in 2015 to consider the Programme of Action’s full and effective implementation”. (Underline Emphasis is the author’s) Over the next few years ‘something’ is needed to fully implement this treaty by 2018. Each two years they will meet to see how the treaty has been complied with. This means new statutes in place at the federal level, further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. An assault weapons ban, large capacity magazine ban and stripper clips ban are just around the corner. In the future this will probably begin with more ‘false flag’ operations, stemming, and leading to our own government behind them. More Aurora, Colorado’s, more Sikh Temple type massacres around the country and maybe even a Oklahoma City bombing type event.
Further documents concerning this treaty can be found here including the UN Programme of Action, International Tracing Instructions, Firearms Protocol, Implementation Plan, the Agenda and much more. Here is their Declaration that was signed by all countries.
The Program of Action, mentioned in the Declaration stressed paragraph 8, 9, 10 and 11.
“8. Reaffirming our respect for and commitment to international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, the peaceful resolution of international disputes, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, “. Non-intervention and non-interference? How about Syria? NATO is part of the United Nations.
“9. Reaffirming the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,”. Collective means the state, in-contrary to our Bill of Rights guaranteed by our government, but ultimately granted by our Creator.
“10. Reaffirming also the right of each State to manufacture, import and retain small arms and light weapons for its self-defense and security needs, as well as for its capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “. This is just another statement dealing with a ‘collective right’, not an individual right. The ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, along with all the ‘alphabet’ agencies of the federal and state governments are immune and the tyranny they will accomplish when this treaty is fully implemented staggers the mind.
“11. Reaffirming the right of self-determination of all peoples, taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and recognizing the right of peoples to take legitimate action in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. This shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” This section was examined previously. It is important to point out that the West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as an ‘sovereign and independent States’, therefore they are up for grabs.
Note also at this link, on the left hand side, near the top, International Assistance. This of course is assistance by the U.N. ‘blue helmets’ to enforce this treaty throughout the world.
Here is an interesting link to a planned destruction of ammunition and weapons in the Dominican Republic on Sept. 19th and 20th. Look alone the right hand side of the article and you will see it.
As Sun Tzu said. “you must have to paralyze the enemy: you must attack his plans before they can be implemented”. Continue to stock up on things that will be banned soon.
Update
E-mail from Dudley Brown “The United Nations’ Programme Against Small Arms meeting is in full swing in New York City.
And my sources inside the UN report countries such as Mexico continue pushing for a UN Gun Ban by the close of this year.
Both the “Small Arms Treaty” and the Programme Against Small Arms provide endless ways to accomplish this goal.
As you may remember, heading into the “Small Arms Treaty” Conference last month, anti-gun international bureaucrats were bragging that the conference would craft “the most important initiative ever regarding arms regulation . . .”
But thanks to your sustained grassroots pressure, no treaty was passed, likely because the Obama Administration could not get all the gun controls it wanted.
However, the gun-grabbers are back at it again this week and next, working to put together yet another anti-gun agreement — and this time, such an agreement WOULD NOT require a vote in the U.S. Senate.” dudley.brown@nationalgunrights.org
How I got on Dudley’s list, I am not sure, maybe because of my interest in protecting our ‘right to keep and bear arms’ and articles I have written in the past. I left a link for the e-mail so that you can contact him and asked to put on his list. As I have always suspected, this is going to be put through as an Executive Order by either Obama or Romney. In similar fashion to Clinton and Agenda 21.
Dudley appears to have inside sources at the U.N., the information that he provides I have tested and found it to be accurate.
” STEVEN COSTNER (United States) encouraged all States to implement the Programme of Action to the fullest extent possible, in particular by building capacity in marking and tracing, while strengthening controls over international transfers. The United States had undertaken such efforts, and had destroyed about 1.6 million surplus, loosely secured or other illicit weapons in several countries since 2001, he said. It had destroyed some 33,000 man-portable air defense systems in 37 countries, and provided assistance by training military personnel. It had also concluded memorandums of understanding with more than 30 Member States to engage in the “e-Trace” programme, and had invited other States to do the same.”
“He went on to say that his country had provided additional assistance through the Export Control and Related Border Security programme, which worked to detect and interdict the illicit transfer of conventional arms, weapons of mass destruction and other materials. There were other areas in which more strengthening was necessary, he said, citing the need for more efficient international coordination and the sharing of best practices. He also highlighted the need to address gender-based violence, in line with Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) and the Programme of Action itself. It was crucial to include a gender perspective, in particular by enhancing the participation of women in the Programme’s implementation, he said. The United States also encouraged fellow donors to work more closely together, and to avoid duplication of efforts in order to make the best use of scarce resources, he said, urging Member States to work towards better coordination with other meetings and programmes.”
Just More proof of United States troops disarming citizens in other countries.
And for anyone who thinks United Nations don’t matter… think again. Part of the scrambling going on right now in our government is because of a UN Resolution that Obama and Hillary committed us to.
By all the expert’s accounts and common sense the movie on Muhammad didn’t have a thing to do with the actions of the insane terrorists in Egypt, Libya, etc. The President of Libya has now come out and admitted that these were preplanned attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 and were not sparked by the movie. So why are Clinton and Obama so focused on apologizing for this movie? Why? For those who do not know this… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama are so busy apologizing because they agreed to UN Resolution 1618 whereby we (The United States and its citizens) cannot say anything negative about Islam, favoring Islam over all other religions in the U.S. They have already sold us down the river, through this U.N. Resolution which implements Sharia Law over the U.S. Constitution and favors Islam over all other religions and over our right to freedom of speech in the United States. Representative and GOP Primary candidate for President Michele Bachmann explained this on Huckabee this past Saturday
BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today applauds the decision by the United States to not sign the proposed International Arms Trade Treaty, and CCRKBA credits grassroots action for the gun rights victory.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who is at the United Nations in New York, said the announcement came Friday morning after a week of intense negotiations.
“I think the grassroots surge by American gun owners against this treaty convinced our government to not sign this document,” Gottlieb said. “The proposed treaty, as written, poses serious problems for our gun rights, and the sovereignty of our Second Amendment.”
CCRKBA has been active in raising public awareness about the proposed treaty, and Gottlieb said he is proud of members and supporters who made “stepped up to the plate” and contacted their U.S. senators.
“This is freedom in action,” Gottlieb stated. “We are gratified that so many did so much to protect their Second Amendment rights from an international gun rights grab.
NFA GUN Trust Lawyer Blog: “I received numerous emails about the UN Treaty not being approved. The Examiner and TheGunMag.com have also reported that It was announced this morning that the US will not sign the UN Arms Treaty in its current form. While it is possible that a modified treaty could be singed at a later time it appears that the intense public awareness of the restrictions on our Second Amendment rights has cause such outreach by firearms rights supporters that the Treaty will not be signed in its present form.
As of this afternoon, I am seeing no major media outlets reporting this fact and some even alluding that it will still be passed. Will it be passed or not? We will know if a few days. Below I have complied a few sources on the story and even read through the proposed treaty which I found to be very circular and while supporting gun rights of states, would appear to require states (countries) to pass laws that would not permit misdirection or misuse of firearms by others. How else can you do this other than to ban certain small arms.
The UN has a history of pursuing disarmament including firearms owned by individuals. While the text appears to talk about gun rights, it talks about them in terms of the states rights or collective self-defense rights and not at the individual level as we have under the Second Amendment. The UN has described its efforts on their own website as wanting to advance the restrictions and availability of ownership of small arms by the individual and destruction of surplus state (government-owned) weapons.
The Preamble states "Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime."
Go to:The UN International Arms Trade Treaty Conference (ATT) final draft is completed , for details. Go here leaked draft for more details and background and the ATT draft as of mid-week 07.25.12
As no major media outlets are reporting the above outcome… that the ATT hasn’t passed and in fact some are even alluding that it will still be passed, we will continue to hold our breath. But we might have dodged a bullet, no pun intended, this time around… but you can bet that if the U.S. really does not sign the UN gun ban treaty this time around… it will come up again! And they still might sign leaving us with work to do.
The United States upended a major international treaty negotiation, telling foreign delegates at the final session today that they needed more time to consider the pact. Some diplomats said that Washington is seeking another six months, pushing off any decision on the politically sensitive treaty until after the U.S. election. Russia, Indonesia, and India also asked for more time.
Thomas Countryman, U.S. deputy secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, informed representatives of the U.N.'s 193 member states that the United States still needed time to consider the text.
Arms controls advocates expressed dismay over the American move, saying it could undercut momentum that has been building to establish the world's first international treaty government the export of weapons. Before the U.S. speech, they were convinced that the United States and other big powers were on board.
We are "extremely disappointed about this outcome," said Daryl Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association. The failure of this treaty is "in large part due to the failure of leadership by President Obama."
"Today the U.S. did not grab the golden ring: an international arms treaty that would have bolstered our country's reputation as a leader on human rights," said progressive Scott Stedjman, senior policy advisor for Oxfam. "Moving forward, President Obama must show the political courage required to make a strong treaty that contains strong rules on human rights a reality."
The United States told delegates that it did not have "core" objections to the draft treaty under consideration, but that it needed more time, saying that while the U.N. negotiations have been playing out since July 2, they only received the final text in the past 24 hours.
The U.S. mission to the United Nations was preparing a statement.
Admit it, the real reason that they, comrades Obama and Hillary didn't sign it, if in fact this is true, is because they are advised of what the adverse effects could, or would be as a resultant of a hostile gun owner not taking it any more, or at any time. A new tactic will be formulated in an effort to either ban guns, a particular type of gun, ammunition, or whatever it will take to throw a wrench into the fray.
Juliana:
Get on your hands and knees patriots… we have been given a second chance to save our country!
The text of the anticipated and hotly-contested United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been leaked, with the treaty itself is set to be adopted and signed by member States as early as today, July 27.
Masked behind the language of promoting peace in an international world by preventing genocide, the UN has unleashed a great Trojan Horse that calls upon States to enact national legislation sufficient to meet the minimum goals outlined in this treaty– including gun registries, background checks, import/export controls and more for arms of all types, including small & conventional weapons.
“Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty,”the treaty text states in part.
It makes specific note that the treaty places no limit upon greater gun control efforts within individual nations, and additionally places no expiration on the agreement. The scope of this language proves the analysis by Infowars (1, 2, 3, 4), writers at Forbesand many other publications that have been warning about this deceptive encroachment to be correct– there is an effort to disarm America underway.
---------------
The devil, as usual, is in the details.
Repeatedly, the treaty obligates States to establish “national control systems” to meet the particulars of the treaty. While the phrase “within national laws and regulations” appears to suggest that the 2nd Amendment would limit the implementation, properly read in the context of the wording and history itself, it really only invites new “regulations” where no “law” can be established.
The first “principle” outlined in the preamble reads: “1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense.” While the language of the treaty appears to recognize the legal right to keep such arms, the text actually recognizes the “inherent right of States” to “individual and collective” self-defense.
This is NOT the same as individual persons’ inherent right to keep and bear arms as recognized and enumerated in the United States’ Bill of Rights. Instead, it puts the collectivist unit known as the State above the individual, in complete defiance of the system set-up in the United States. Individual defense for a State, for instance, refers to what is known on the international scene as “unilateral war,” while collective defense is recognize in such actions as that of NATO or other allied bodies. The States’ right to maintain internal order has also been recognized by the UN, but all other purposes for arms ownership are seen as illegitimate.
It specifically recognizes [only] the “lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” There’s been a great deal of rhetoric from gun grabbers over the years attempting to emphasize gun ownership for legitimate sporting uses, but the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended, and that is the historical legacy Americans cherish.
NO SPECIFIC PROTECTION for individual persons is contained in this dangerous treaty, though the same media who’ve been demonizing critics of the UN’s effort as delusional and paranoid will attempt to argue otherwise, clinging to deliberately inserted clauses herein that look like stop-guards and protections for gun rights, but properly read, do no such thing.
While the UN advises States to keep within the scope of their own laws, the end-run assault against American’s 2nd Amendment is unmistakeable.
The United Nations has a sordid history of pursuing “general and complete disarmament,” and individual arms including legally owned arms have always been part of that focus. The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community” is, according to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument that aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”
As we have previously noted, U.S. troops have been trained to confiscate American guns, while the confiscation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has already set the precedent. The deception over aiming for legal guns while pretending to target “illicit” weapons is continued here in this 2012 monster treaty.
Below is the text in full, as it has been proposed and released. Any changes in the signed version will be noted when that time comes:
————————
UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY TEXT
PREAMBLE
The States Parties to this Treaty.
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and
16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;
Have agreed as follows:
Principles
Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:
The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;
2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;
3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;
4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and
5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.
Article 1 Goals and Objectives
Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,
The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:
- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;
In order to:
- Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;
- Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;
- Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,
Article 2
- A. Covered Items
- 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
- a. Battle Tanks
- b. Armored combat vehicles
- c. Large-caliber Artillery systems
- d. Combat aircraft
- e. Attack helicopters
- f. Warships
- g. Missiles and missile launchers
- h. Small Arms and Light Weapons
- 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.
- 3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.
- 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.
- B. Covered Activities
- 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”
- 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.
Article 3 Prohibited Transfers
A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.
A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.
Article 4 National Assessment
Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:
Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:
Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law; Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law; Contribute to peace and security; Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;
In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.
4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.
5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.
Article 5 Additional Obligations
Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms: being diverted to the illicit market; be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children; become subject to corrupt practices; or adversely impact the development of the recipient State.
Article 6 General Implementation
Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;
The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.
Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;
Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.
State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.
If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.
Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.
Article 7 Export
Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.
Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export. Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.
Article 8 Import
Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.
State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.
Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.
Article 9 Brokering
Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.
Article 10 Transit and Transshipment
Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;
Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;
Article 11 Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency
Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.
ARTICLE 12 ENFORCEMENT
Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.
ARTICLE 13 IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT
This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation. The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties. The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia: Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available; Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points; Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested; Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.
ARTICLE 14 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty. States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.
States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.
4. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.
5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.
Article 15 International Assistance
In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.
Article 16 Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession
This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations. This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories. This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.
4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.
5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.
6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.
7. At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty. Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.
8. References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.
Article 17 Entry into Force
This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.
For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.
For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.
Article 18 Withdrawal and Duration
This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary. The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.
A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.
Article 19 Reservations
Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.
Article 20 Amendments
At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.
Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.
Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.
A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.
Article 21 Conference of States Parties
The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.
The Conference of States Parties shall: a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR
b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;
c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;
d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;
e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.
3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.
Article 22 Dispute Settlement
States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty. States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice. States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.
Article 23 Relations with States not party to this Treaty
States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.
Article 24 Relationship with other instruments
States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.
Article 25 Depositary and Authentic Texts
The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty. The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.
(Word is that the Koreans don’t like it!)
(Emphasis in bold added by this author for help in analysis)
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:46:43 PM – the Hill
Democratic senators included an amendment in the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.
Schumer defended the Brady law and assault weapons ban on the floor Thursday evening, perhaps in preparation for the coming fight for Republicans and gun rights activists.
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.
“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”
Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on amendments to the Cybersecurity bill.
SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following
SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES. (a) DEFINITION.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following: ‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’— ‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but ‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’. (b) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following: ‘‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
It continues on Page 5403.
How does imposing this "prohibition" in any way "enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States"?
![101_ATT00001_thumb[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3cc_itjU33Hr1dYvh1RODTOIgwtfghNTXls_Uw8ivl0kYJYLHX3rYKv3BzyL-rcoDqsh1ODuzX9gevNb1vZuZC8t-daSeZwlm-HqMalFo5oCK-Ebn9zGZn59IMmU0h-0z0Y2CZxONTxT1/s1600-h/101_ATT00001_thumb%25255B1%25255D%25255B3%25255D.jpg "101_ATT00001_thumb[1]")