Fomenting Racial Strife to Force Implementation Of the U.N. Arms Treaty
The situation in Ferguson Missouri seems to be coming to a violent head amid the jury’s coming decision. Janna B. recently reported that the National Guard is preparing for chaos, and the protestors are promising worse than what Los Angeles witnessed during the Rodney King riots. Is this being orchestrated to force implementation of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty?
This is what happens when you elect a community organizer to the highest office of the free world. Remember, the goals of an organizer are to agitate and teach people that they are oppressed. The goals of an organizer are to empower those that have been taught they are oppressed to organize and re-create the world as they think it should be. As it should be through the lens of a communist I should say.
“To destroy the structure of apathy by stirring up dissatisfaction and discontent; disrupt existing complacent expectations, and breaking down the individualistic orientations of community residents.”
Well gee, with a definition like that it isn’t hard to imagine why so many people believe there is a deliberate attempt to foment some kind of racial war. I can’t help but wonder if the “White Privilege” ideology we hear so much about today is a part of this effort. After all, at the lastWhite Privilege conference attendees were taught that racism in the white population was akin to being an alcoholic; while people are never cured of alcoholism, white people are never cured of racism. Keeping this in mind, it is easy to see how the race baiters are able to conjure up protesters in their fake fight for social justice.
Truthfully, I believe there is a deliberate attempt to ignite racial tensions and let racial violence plague the streets of America. While many in the black community may believe that Obama is working to free them from the oppressive hand of racist whites, the truth is far more sinister. Black people are just the “proverbial” useful idiots being used to carry out a much darker objective, one that they too will suffer the consequences.
The New American ran a story on Saturday November 8, about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and the U.N.’s intentions to begin enforcement on December 24, 2014. Many people still believe that this treaty poses no threat to their gun rights and that there isn’t anything to worry about. This seems to be a logical analysis because any treaty that goes against the constitution is in fact unconstitutional and unenforceable. The senate, in January 2014 voted 53-46 to keep The United States from entering into the treaty. In other words, the treaty has no chance of ratification no matter whose signature may be on it. (In case you didn’t know, John Kerry signed it in the summer of 2013.)
I’m not sure if you have noticed, but so far President Obama and his leftist cohorts have shown absolutely no desire to abide by the Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend. This is why the Republicans took control of the senate, or so they would have us believe.
There is some very important text within the treaty that deserves special attention, particularly article 16. This section specifically deals with disarmament of civilian populations, and establishes the creation of a trust fund in case certain nations need U.N. assistance because they have failed to implement effective disarmament programs. Here are a couple of other points that should be taken into consideration-
To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, including by strengthening the national system of export and import licensing and authorization, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, including their diversion to unauthorized recipients.
To implement effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, particularly in post-conflict situations, including peace agreements and peace keeping operations.
Did you see the part about preventing small arms being delivered to “unauthorized recipients?” That’s you and I folks, we are the unauthorized recipients. The next paragraph is a bit more alarming. Do you see the part about implementing effective disarmament programs in “post conflict” situations? It is starting to make more sense now, isn’t it” This is why the U.N. is getting so involved in U.S. affairs while trying to use the Ferguson situation to characterise the U.S. as an apartheid state. This conflict in Ferguson is being deliberately orchestrated as a means of getting around the senate’s refusal to ratify the small arms treaty! That is just my opinion of course; however, I am sure you can agree it is a logical conclusion looking at the evidence at hand.
I wouldn't be surprised if Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the arming of Isis were all conducted for the same purpose. All of these scandals involved mass movements of weaponry that essentially ended up in the wrong hands. Perhaps the goal in the end is more than simple gun control in the U.S. but a more complex plan to get the U.S. to cave in and accept the terms of the Arms Treaty. That may be a bit of a speculation; however, knowing what I know about community organizers and the global attempts to undermine our sovereignty, it’s a speculation that holds a lot of possibility.