AmmoLand.com

Bill Defunds United Nations If Arms Trade Treaty Is Adopted

AmmoLand Gun News

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL-8) on Dec. 7 introduced the Second Amendment Protection Act (HR-3594) with 20 co-sponsors, a measure that would cut off all funding to the United Nations if the United States agrees to any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of American citizens.

In a letter to his colleagues seeking additional co-sponsors in the House, Walsh noted that “The United Nations has been trying for almost a decade now to move forward with the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty poses a very real threat to the sovereignty of the United States and to our right to keep and bear arms—and this treaty is now moving forward with the support of the current administration.”

In late 2009, the US State Department reversed prior policy and announced that the US would back launching talks on the ATT. That version of the ATT is now expected to be finalized in 2012.

“The United States should never agree to a treaty that infringes on our constitutional rights, especially one that could implement sweeping gun control measures,” Walsh’s letter notes. “This treaty poses many dangers and could put serious pressure on the US to compromise on personal gun ownership rights. In a 2008 resolution on the treaty–adopted almost unanimously with only the US and Zimbabwe in opposition–the ‘highest possible standards’ of control were called for. “It is time for Congress to act to help ensure this treaty never sees the light of day. While the Senate is tasked with ratifying treaties, we (the House) must send a signal that this treaty is bad for America and bad for US gun rights.”

Almost 40 senators previously had written to the President and Secretary of State to express their opposition to the ATT. However, Walsh’s bill is the first in Congress to put financial brakes on any such treaty.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), which had helped develop the measure in cooperation with Walsh’s office, immediately applauded the Illinois congressman’s leadership in calling attention to the threat posed by the proposed binding small arms treaty that could affect the arms and ammunition commonly used by Americans for recreation and defense.

“The United Nations’ effort to adopt a global gun control initiative needs to be reined in,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “For too many years, bureaucrats in the United Nations have become far too cozy with international gun prohibition organizations, and Congressman Walsh’s legislation seems the best way to get their attention. We’ve been delighted and honored to be part of this effort.”

“It is an insult to United States sovereignty,” he added, “that the UN would be entertaining such measures while enjoying this country’s hospitality at its headquarters in New York City. It is the greatest irony, and perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy, for the United Nations to be discussing any treaty that might threaten our Second Amendment, because it has been the United States, with its citizen soldiers and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that has come to the world’s rescue not once, but twice in global conflicts.

“When diplomacy fails, it is time to close our checkbook,” Gottlieb said. “The Bush administration opposed such a treaty, but the Obama administration is moving forward with discussions on an international Arms Trade Treaty. It is up to Congress to put the brakes on such efforts and protect our national sovereignty, which has been protected and defended for more than two centuries because our citizens have the right, and the resources, to defend it.”

Walsh stated: “The Arms Trade Treaty is bad for America and bad for US gun rights. The Bush Administration had wisely opposed any effort to advance this treaty. Yet quickly into the first year of President Obama’s presidency, talks have now resumed and the treaty will soon be voted on next year.”

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 10 Comments »

Inconvenient questions will not be tolerated in Durban or other climate crisis conferences.
By Kelvin Kemm

Editors Note: Notice how the reactions by UN representatives and implementation of policy are identical to those demonstrated at the secretive UN Small Arms Treaty meetings.

AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- British Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley parachuted with me into Durban, South Africa, to challenge UN climate crisis claims, attracting numerous journalists and onlookers.

A 20-foot banner across our press conference table gave the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow further opportunities to present realistic perspectives on the science and economics of climate change.

CFACT played by the rules, obtained the necessary permits beforehand, and ensured that its message was heard throughout the seventeenth annual climate conference (COP-17).

Greenpeace, on the other hand, got no permits before staging an Occupy Durban protest in the hallway outside the plenary session – and got kicked out of the conference.

Shortly thereafter, however, Lord Monckton and another CFACT representative were summarily (though temporarily) ejected from the Durban conference, for preposterous reasons that dramatize how thin-skinned and arrogant the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has become.

As a South African and delegate at the COP-17 conference, I witnessed more amazing and absurd exhibitions than one would find at a Believe It Or Not circus sideshow. Along with thousands of government delegates, scientists and journalists, we witnessed music and dance groups, Women for Climate Justice, the Alliance for Climate Protection, APEs (Artists Protect the Earth) and others pleading for “planetary salvation.”

It took a truly nimble mind, and abiding sense of humor, to appreciate their often competing messages.

One large official poster proclaimed “More climate change means less water,” while the one next to it said “More climate change means more floods.”

A socialist group sloganeered “One planet living is the new aspiration.” I could only conclude that they were neo-Malthusians worried sick about speculative climate chaos and resource depletion – and promoting a roll-back of energy use and living standards, so that people can share “more equitably” in sustained poverty and misery, enforced by UN edicts.

Yet another group insisted that the world should “Stop talking and start planting.” However, this group and countless others oppose profits and private enterprises. They apparently haven’t yet realized that large paper and timber companies plant the most trees and create the largest new-growth forests, which breathe in the most carbon dioxide and breathe out the most oxygen.

These and similar organizations also demanded that profit-making companies give more money to environmentalist NGOs – which might temporarily make the companies less reprehensible and more eco-friendly.

Of course, if the activists succeed in further obstructing the companies, they will plant fewer trees, remove less CO2, create fewer jobs and have less money to give to NGOs.

This parallel universe aspect of the Durban extravaganza was troublesome enough. Another aspect of the conference was much more sinister and worrisome. Which brings us back to Lord Monckton, a renowned debater and expert in IPCC and climate science, economics and politics.

One day he and I were meandering through the halls, as advisors to CFACT and its official delegation to the conference. We were accompanied by CFACT project organizer Josh Nadal, who was using his video camera to film anything he liked, to make a video of “what we did at COP-17.”

As we rounded a corner, we saw someone we didn’t know being interviewed for the in-house television information system that transmitted programs throughout the official venue. We were astounded by how biased and inaccurate his comments were. When atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose, temperature also rose, he insisted – very simple. Of course, that is simply not true.

His interview over, he stepped off the dais and headed our way. I asked him whether he would agree that global temperatures had actually gone down during the early 1970s, even as CO2 levels continued to rise. He refused to acknowledge this universally accepted fact. I then mentioned the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago. In response, he asserted that the MWP was merely a localized event of no consequence. Also simply not true.

At that point Monckton asked him to acknowledge that the science was nowhere nearly as clear cut as he had proclaimed. The official refused to do so, asserted “I have work to do,” and walked off.

"He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions"

Josh had been filming the entire exchange, but now an aide put a hand over the camera lens. When I remarked that just walking off was bad manners, the aide said “You are not worth debating.” I replied, “All he had to do was answer two simple questions.” I was amazed when the aide responded, “He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions.” The aide then walked off just as rudely as his boss had.

These unelected technocrats and bureaucrats want to decide the science and ordain the energy and economic policies that will determine our future livelihoods and living standards. And yet they are of the opinion that they can talk scientific nonsense and ignore anyone’s inconvenient questions. We had not known that he was Michel Jarraud, Secretary General of the WMO. But that is irrelevant. We were polite, and he should have been, as well. But it gets worse.

Two hours later, Lord Monckton and Josh were informed that they had violated ad hoc rules and were banned from further participation in the conference: Josh for filming without permission, Monckton for “unprofessional” conduct. Somehow I was spared. The next day, following negotiations between CFACT and UN officials, the two were reinstated.

A couple of days later, a TV interviewer asked IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele whether there was now enough information to decide the next steps COP-17 should take. van Ypersele answered, “The body of knowledge was there already in the first [IPCC] report twenty years ago and was actually good enough to start the action which inspired the convention on climate change.”

The interviewer then asked if the science was well enough understood. “Not only is there enough science” the Vice Chair replied, “but that science has been there, available and explained by the IPCC, already from the first report.”

In other words, in the view of the IPCC, climate change science was settled even before the term “climate change” was coined – and all “research” and “findings,” reports and conferences since then have been window dressing – inconsequential. Even new evidence about cosmic ray effects on cloud cover, and thus on the amount of the sun’s heat reaching the earth, is irrelevant in the view of the IPCC and other UN agencies, and thus may be intentionally ignored.

The imperious attitudes and intolerance of dissenting opinions displayed by these officials further underscores the wholly unscientific and politicized nature of the IPCC process. Even in the face of Climategate 2009 and 2010, The Delinquent Teenager, Marc Morano’s A-Z Climate Reality Check and other revelations, the UN and IPCC fully intend to impose their views and agendas.

At this point, in the view of the IPCC, the only thing left is for first world countries to pay up and shut up – and poor countries to develop in the way and to the extent allowed by the United Nations.

About:
Dr. Kelvin Kemm holds a PhD in nuclear physics, is currently CEO of Stratek and lives in Pretoria, South Africa. He also serves as a scientific advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

Filed under: Conservation News by Ammoland No Comments »