There has been a rapid uptick in information since Ken Melson appeared in front of Issa’s congressional investigative committee. Revelations include the depth of conspiracy within the DOJ and the attachment by the FBI. Also, we discovered the funding stemmed from Obama’s stimulus bill, and in Florida there was another very similar project taking place with guns headed toward Honduras. The entire tentacle ridden case of corruption appears to be gaining traction toward being exposed. However, there is also a great deal of questioning about why this entire program would be taking place to begin with.
Ann Barnhardt (aka IamDagny) has connected many of those “why” dots very effectively and connects the Fast and Furious program to a manipulative effort aimed at leveraging support for the United States to enter a UN small arms treaty. Thereby reaching a long desired left-wing goal of restricting gun ownership and eliminating the pesky problem with the 2nd amendment freedom protections.
In this post in addition to sharing Ann’s perspective I want to dig deeper into how the UN angle is played out, and who exactly is behind such an endeavor. This is constructed from various non affiliated sites however they are connected to paint a more clear picture. Starting with Ann:
Ann Barnhardt – Now we know why Hillary Clinton and Obama were falling all over themselves to support and prop-up the Honduran Marxist dictator-wannabe, Manuel Zelaya back in 2009. I never could figure out why they would create such blatantly unflattering, pro-Marxist optics for the Obama regime for a small country like Honduras. Now it all makes perfect sense. Zelaya attempted to overthrow the Honduran constitution and install himself as dictator for life, a la Hugo Chavez. The Honduran Congress AND Supreme Court followed their Constitutional Rule of Law to the letter and removed Zelaya. Within hours Obama and Clinton were threatening Honduras and demanding that the Marxist dictator Zelaya be re-installed. Now we know why. Obama and Clinton were arming Zelaya and were coordinating with Zelaya to run arms through Honduras.
Presumably the deal was that some of the arms would stay with Zelaya and most would move into Mexico from the South. Then, Obama and Clinton could “find” U.S. guns in Southern Mexico and Central America, and thus use these optics to bolster their false
contention that “90%” of Mexican guns were sourced directly from the U.S. “See? U.S. guns are all the way down in Chiapas State and Guatemala. U.S. guns are everywhere! The Second Amendment simply is not feasible any longer!”
Mexican president Felipe Calderon has also parroted the Obama/Clinton fake statistics claiming that “90%” of the guns in Mexico came from the U.S. This strongly implies that the Obama regime colluded with Mexico City on this Gunwalker action with the objective of using the resulting bloodshed to suspend the Second Amendment and disarm the people of the United States. […]
In attempting to create optics that implicated the Second Amendment to the Constitution as being responsible for arming narco-terrorists and the resulting mass murder, the Obama/Clinton machine has engaged in attempted insurrection against the established lawful order, namely the Constitution. They have subversively attempted to stir up rebellion against the Constitution by fraudulently stirring up commotion against the Constitution. This “commotion” took the form of the calculated murder of hundreds of Mexican civilians, law enforcement officers and regular military and the murder of at least two U.S. law enforcement officers.
Obama personally acknowledged these acts of treason and sedition when he told Sarah Brady on March 30, 2011 that gun control in the U.S. was coming, but that “we have to go through a few processes. Under the radar.” (more)
Sipsey Street posts and answers the following question:
“Why would ATF walk guns to Honduras?” asks a reader. That’s easy.
First, and this is important to understand: the Tampa operation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that “Project Gunwalker” was a national strategy, not a Phoenix aberration. The “major media” has been slow to understand this. They have ignored the fact that the Houston Field Division had to have played a supervisory role in known straw buying incidents in Dallas and Columbus NM as they are in their area of operations, not Phoenix’s. Original reporting on this subject from Texas has been pitiful.
Second, Honduras is where the action is. As Borderland Beat reported back in November of last year, Honduras: Mexican Cartels Work Closely with Street Gangs. (read more)
Then in another point Ann Shares:
The Obama/Clinton machine is trying to gin up a global “cry” in the U.N. for “something to be done” about all of these American weapons, which Obama would then respond to by signing on the Small Arms Treaty in order to “make amends” for America’s crimes against humanity, when in fact the crimes against humanity were carried out BY OBAMA AND CLINTON THEMSELVES.
This is all TEXTBOOK Marxist-Alinsky agitation and rabblerousing. The Marxist agitator is specifically tasked with CREATING CHAOS where none existed before, and then leveraging that chaos to advance the Marxist revolution. In this case, the “chaos” is not merely picketing or rallies, but PILES OF DEAD HUMAN BEINGS, killed by narco-terrorists specifically armed by the agitators themselves, Obama-Jarrett, Clinton, Holder and the rest of the regime. (more)
So at this point let me look at the UN angle a little more specifically. The following excerpt is from a Forbes Article:
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms – It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights. (read more)
Yikes, that sounds like an overreach. We dig a little further and thankfully Southern Colorado Patriots Club did a great check on this angle and asks: Maybe the UN has something to say about this?
Yes. Or at least the UN Dispatch does, in an article directly addressing this topic. But first, who is the “UN Dispatch”? Are they really related to the UN? Sort of. On their “about us” page, they disclose they are funded by the United Nations Foundation. Who are they? On their “about UNF” page, they reveal their advocacy of the UN. Here’s an excerpt:
The UN Foundation, a public charity, was created in 1998 with entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner’s historic $1 billion gift to support UN causes and activities. We are an advocate for the UN and a platform for connecting people, ideas and resources to help the United Nations solve global problems.
We help the UN take its best work and ideas to scale—through advocacy, partnerships, constituency building and fund-raising.
Whoa. OK, so let’s get back to the UN Dispatch, who is supported by the UNF, who is an open advocate of the UN and the amazing work they do throughout the world. What do they say? Here’s an excerpt from their statement on this treaty.
Needless to say, the UN does not want to confiscate Americans’firearms. What many member states do want to do, however, is make it more difficult for guerrilla movements, insurgents and irresponsible governments from easily obtaining small arms. Nine years ago, member states proposed setting in motion a treaty process that would do just that. The Bush administration, though, opposed the treaty process. This was problematic for the cause, as it were, because the United States is among the world’s largest exporter of small arms. Any treaty without the United States on board would not be very effective.
The Obama administration does not share the previous administration’s view of the utility of a small arms trade treaty. [2010] Secretary Clinton made clear that the United States would support the arms trade treaty process. However, understanding that any treaty requires senate passage, the United States set one big condition on the treaty negotiation process: that it proceed by consensus. This means that unanimity is required for all votes, which, in turn, gives the United States an effective veto over the entire process. This has not seem to quell the conspiracy spinners, who apparently remain convinced that the UN is plotting to take Americans’ guns away. But the fact of the matter is, this treaty process is all about restricting the international transfer of small arms to irresponsible end users, like terrorist groups, militias that use child soldiers, or governments that use the weapons to commit terrible human rights abuses.
Oh. Right—nothing to see here. Except that we have a Secretary of State who is in apparent support of such a treaty. And that we don’t know what that treaty says, and probably won’t until it’s on the table for signatures. Perhaps it’s like the recent health care debacle, of which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Wouldn’t that be nice? I just love surprises.
There’s also that trifling little bit about guerrilla movements and insurgents and such. You don’t think they’re talking about Patriots Clubs or Tea Party organizations, do you?
(Visit Southern Colorado Patriots Here)
So the Ted Turner lefty Globalist types are specifically funding a PR wing of the UN to advance a selling point for restrictive gun control hidden under the auspices of a small arms treaty. Does that sound like they are “connecting people, ideas and resources to help the United Nations solve global problems” ? Do you feel better now, knowing this quasi-governmental organization is actually more like a group of global activists with fronting organizations to hide the true identity of the “atypical globalist elites”.
Whose interests do you think they are looking out for…?
… Carbon Trading Martini anyone ?
Research Links: