TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) would be the nail in the coffin for free market economics and democracy.

Zero Hedge:

Note to those who oppose to what they call “one world government” or a “new world order”: This is the big fight.

First Congressman Allowed to Read Secret Treaty Says “This ... Hands The Sovereignty of Our Country Over to Corporate Interests”

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

When members of our military and law enforcement start taking these things seriously, so do I.

A former CA Highway Patrol officer forwarded to me the following email he received:

"When I first started watching this video I thought it was BS, then at 7 minutes into the clip I became curious,and concerned.

Thought I would forward this for your take."

Semper Fi,
Bill

So then I forwarded it to a former Army combat infantry Veteran who has current direct connections = Association linked closely with active duty combat infantry units both Germany & U.S.

He says this:

"I can not say with certainty that the item here is totally legit.

However, what I can say with some confidence is that at least some of the active duty infantry folks with whom I am close have told me they have been assigned to attend more than one session involving control of civilian populations, including how to disarm, etc. These classes have taken place over the past 90-120 days.

When the active duty folks have asked why they are being assigned to attend this specific training, they are simply told it is basic continuing education. But there is talk among the ranks on this topic.

Just in case you're interested, here's the article (which has the video) they were discussing:

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

So what do you think?

Obama's final "f*ck you" to the country?

The Assault on the 2nd amendment...and No One Cares

This is the worst thing that's happened to our country...because Treaties can NEVER be changed!

UPDATE: FOX: U.N. ARMS TREATY COULD PUT U.S. GUN OWNERS IN FOREIGN SIGHTS, SAY CRITICS

U.S. Naval Institute: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller (Ret.)
U.S. Naval Institute - December 23, 2010

President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force...”

Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.

Read more

John Foster Dulles: 2/25/1888

"Our institutions reflect the belief of our founders that all men were endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights...They believed that human institutions ought primarily to help men develop their God-given possibilities," thus stated Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who was born FEBRUARY 25, 1888, in the home of his Civil War general grandfather.

A graduate of Princeton, John Foster Dulles studied law at George Washington University, was an Army Major in WWI and a U.S. Senator. He was advisor to Truman and Secretary of State for Eisenhower. A Presbyterian pastor's son, Dulles negotiated the Peace Treaty with Japan and was U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C., is named for him.

Speaking on Communism, John Foster Dulles remarked at the Jesuit Alumni Dinner, April 11, 1955: "Man, we read in the Holy Scriptures, was made a little lower than the angels. Should man now be made little higher than domesticated animals which serve the purpose of their human masters? So men face the great dilemma of whether to use force to resist aggression which imposes conditions which violate the moral law and the concept that man has his origins and his destiny in God."

American Minute with Bill Federer

What does the Treaty of Copenhagen, reparations, and World War II have to do with the United States?

Climate Treaty Reparations would cost $50-$200bn per year

The largest share of the burden would be borne by the United States. Students of history may remember that the reparations forced upon Germany by the victors of World War I, resulted in hyperinflation, destroyed the German middle class, and eventually brought Adolf Hitler to power, causing World War II.

Why signing the Copenhagen Treaty will be a prosecutable act of Treason

Wonder why John Griffing at American Thinker says: "President Obama will be committing treason by signing this [Copenhagen] treaty"? Read the whole thing to understand completely, but here's a sample:

President Obama has pledged to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, the biggest transfer of American wealth and sovereignty in U.S. history.

Few have bothered to read the agreement, which like so many other damaging agreements is excessively verbose. It calls for climate reparations to third-world countries -- what the treaty calls "adaptation debt." This isn't optional. Clause 33 on page 39 of the agreement says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]." And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply with this theft of resources World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified...World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified.

And here is what more and more of us fear will become a reality:

Once America is gone, it will be gone forever. Nations will benefit most from the continuing existence of a strong America. Killing the golden goose will not bring balance to the universe. Plundering American wealth will provide only a temporary shot in the arm for poor nations -- and then the drug will wear off, ushering in a new dark age on a global scale.

Right now, President Obama is the most powerful person in the most powerful country on earth. Obama may not have noticed, but we already have world government, and America is king.

Just like with the man who sells his soul for power, the Devil never delivers as promised. He's the Devil. And paradoxically, for the world to destroy America, it needs America's wealth and resources.

Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.

Watermelon Marxists

Sign this now and stop the world government from gaining control of the United States!

The draft Treaty of Copenhagen, to be signed in mid-December 2009, would create an unelected world government with direct power over all financial and trading markets, and direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Treaty.

In just a few weeks...the end of the United States as we know it

Watch this video and listen to what Lord Monckton has to say. If President Obama signs the UN Climate Change Treaty in December, America will no longer be a sovereign nation and will suffer great economic hardship.

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

Read the whole thing

Fight back against Obama's stealth gun control treaty

Obama's found a work-around our 2nd Amendment but Republican Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming is fighting back: International treaty gives foreign troops identity of American gun owners

Obama dumping Israel?

Well, this should finally (as it plays out) settle the question of whether or not Obama is REALLY a Christian or not: EXCLUSIVE: Secret U.S.-Israel nuclear accord in jeopardy

HAT TIP:HOT AIR

Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

Alarm raised over treaty provision to ban activity

------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 21, 2009
10:00 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama, who supported the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., before it was tossed by the Supreme Court, since his election has watched various proposals to ban "assault" weapons, require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases that caused some retailers to name him their salesman of the year. Now he apparently is going after citzens who reload their ammunition.

It was during an official visit earlier this month to Mexico that he affirmed his support for a proposed international treaty that addresses "firearms trafficking."

According to a blogger who follows the issue, the treaty was adopted by President Clinton years ago but never ratified by the U.S. Senate, a goal Obama now has adopted.

The writer, B.A. Lawson, says, "If you reload your own ammo you may find yourself engaged in 'Illicit Manufacturing' of ammunition under an arms control treaty that President Obama started pushing last week in Mexico."

Read more

10 Reasons for Rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty

1.

Ronald Reagan rejected this treaty – not just because of certain details associated with seabed mining, but because of the threat he rightly saw LOST represented to our sovereignty and national interests in its empowerment of supranational government. Representations that his concerns have been “fixed” by a 1994 agreement Bill Clinton’s administration negotiated are false. Key Reagan lieutenants like former National Security Advisor Bill Clark, former Counselor to the President and Attorney General Ed Meese and the late former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick have agreed that LOST remains unacceptably defective.

To learn more, click here.

2.

LOST empowers the United Nations. LOST is also known as the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” All LOST agencies are U.N. organizations, and the U.N. Secretary General plays an important role in administering the treaty. The U.N. has a track record of corruption and hostility to American and its allies, most recently evident in its entrusting to Libya and Iran decisions about an anti-Israel conference on “racism.” The UN’s multilateral agencies and bureaucrats cannot be trusted to oversee or administer 70% of the world’s surface covered by its oceans.

To learn more, click here.

3.

LOST threatens American sovereignty by subjecting our governmental, military and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution – to be decided by international bodies that are stacked against us. LOST’s broad jurisdiction – involving virtually anything affecting the world’s oceans – is an invitation to UN interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale. Worse yet, decisions by LOST’s dispute resolution mechanisms are final and without appeal, obliging us to submit to the dictates of others perhaps motivated by anti-American agendas.

To learn more, click here.

4.

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is inconsistent with American security. As a party, the United States would be obliged to uphold myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests, including one reserving the oceans exclusively for “peaceful purposes.” Proponents claim that military activities are exempt, but obligations such as those barring the use of territorial waters for intelligence collection or their transit by submerged submarines clearly set the stage for disputes that may well be decided against us. The treaty also requires the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies to other nations and international organizations hostile to American interests. So-called “fixes” in the 1994 agreement do not alter this reality.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by restraining our military, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by forcing the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by emboldening China’s aggressive claims on the oceans, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by providing a forum for ludicrous territorial claims such as Russia’s claim to the floor of the North Pole, click here.

5.

President Clinton called LOST “the greatest environmental treaty in history.” It will be used by America’s economic competitors and strategic adversaries to interfere with our sovereign decisions concerning actions they deem to have unacceptable environmental impacts – probably with little regard to the costs to Americans and their businesses. LOST is a back-door way to impose U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accord.

To learn more, click here.

6.

LOST would establish a precedent for international taxation. LOST empowers a multilateral International Seabed Authority (ISA) to administer deep seabed mining operations. This supranational ISA would impose fees, royalty requirements and other payments on American companies in order that they may exercise exploration and production rights they already enjoy. These forced arrangements would take money out of the American business revenue stream for an international government’s use – and would amount to a tax on Americans without representation.

To learn more about how LOST imposes international taxation on Americans, click here.

To learn more about the potential for LOST to set alarming precedents for the international control of other “international commons” such as Outer Space or the Internet, click here.

7.

LOST imposes requirements of other treaties and international standards that the U.S. has not accepted. LOST international bodies to hear disputes related to the purposes of LOST. This means that if the U.S. joins LOST, it could be brought before a LOST tribunal for violating a totally different treaty – including a treaty that it has not even joined – as long as it relates, for example, to protecting the marine environment.

To learn more, click here.

8.

If the U.S. is a party to LOST, it could be subjected to decisions enforced by activist American judges, importing foreign or perhaps even “international” law into the courtroom, or perhaps even a UN Navy.

To learn more about how LOST opens the door to the imposition of “international” law in American courtrooms, click here.

To learn more about how the United States is fully capable of protecting its interests on the oceans without subjecting itself to LOST litigation mechanisms, click here.

9.

LOST creates precedents for replacing accountable, representative government under our Constitution with supranational bureaucratic arrangements that are non-transparent and wholly unaccountable.

To learn more, click here.

10.

Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department cannot be counted on to truly represent American interests on LOST. It reflexively embraces treaties and other international agreements at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, seemingly favoring harmonious relations with other countries over U.S. national interests.

To learn more, click here.


In summary, America does not need to join LOST to protect its interests in the world’s oceans. A “seat at the table” in LOST agencies where we can be simply outvoted will not safeguard those interests. It will, however, oblige us to abide by the majority’s dictates. The U.S. already belongs to several multi-country organizations (for example, the Arctic Council) designed to solve regional oceans disputes, and can always exercise diplomacy with another country directly. In the final analysis, a navy second-to-none – the large and potent U.S. fleet we need today and for the foreseeable future – is a more certain basis for assuring freedom of the seas and our interests than a defective international treaty like LOST.


Contact Your Senators!!!


Get involved and educate your Senators about the harmful effects of the Law of the Sea Treaty. We encourage you to write a brief e-mail to your Senators highlighting several of the points in this document. While original letters are most effective, click here for language and formatting suggestions.


CONTACT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HERE