Marti Oakley     © Copyright 2012     All Rights Reserved  **See Reservations below.

On May 3rd, 1994, then President Clinton signed Presidential Directive 25 (PDD-25).  This directive placed US military commanders under the jurisdiction of the United Nations if the UN was conducting an action of some kind, anywhere.  The actual text of the directive remains sealed and classified.

PDD25 was originally written as PDD-13.  The re-write of PPD-13 and conversion to PDD-25 was needed to exclude a disclaimer from General Colin Powell, the 1993 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  This disclaimer made certain that US commanders would not have to comply with UN orders which were:

  • Outside the mandate of the mission or,
  • illegal under US law or,
  • militarily imprudent or unsound.

PDD-25 of course, removed these provisions.

#25 also makes no distinction as to where UN meddling might be taking place, and no provision was included to exclude any actions by the UN within the geographical United States.  What may keep the UN and its “peacekeeping forces” out of the US is that if they show up here, they will not get a glowing reception.  No one would be happy to see them and we would not greet them with flowers and garlands, nor would we cheer their arrival.  It is however, a distinct possibility that they would be greeted with massive amounts of fireworks.  And that appears to be a long-standing concern for those dedicated to disarming the world so that only they and their armies have weapons.  It makes overtaking one country after another so much easier if you are the only one who is armed.

Bear in mind that this is the same UN that sat by and twiddled its thumbs while 500,000 Rowandans’ were hacked to death.  The same one that made no attempt to intervene and allow the delivery of food and supplies to the Palestinians. And the same bunch that participated in the sanctions against Somalia and caused wide-spread famine.  And it was the UN who delivered GMO seeds to Haiti after their big quake, but not a lot of anything else.

About those guns you Americans have…..

The UN also decided that 1994 was a good year to launch “ The Chairman’s Working Paper on Guidelines for International Arms Transfers”  (A/C-1-/1994/W.III/CRP 2 Rev.1)  the intent of this document was expressed by those setting policy for the world, inside the UN.  The group makes clear that their intent is to control every aspect of gun production, sale and ownership around the world and to do so even at a “micro” level.  Many are assuming that “small arms” means simply smaller military weapons.

30. States should define, in accordance with their national laws and regulations, which arms are permitted for civilian use and which may be used or possessed by the military and police forces.

1994- 2012 Some things never change

This is especially pertinent right now as Hillary Clinton is spending the month of July, 2012 at the United Nations discussing the Small Arms Treaty.  What might Hillary be contemplating while visiting that den of pit vipers at the UN?  Maybe this?

A pamphlet from UNICEF which is being  circulated entitled “No Guns, Please: We Are Children”, and includes this:

 “Small arms are designed for personal use. They include revolvers and self-loading pistols, assault rifles, sub-machine guns, rifles and carbines and light machine-guns.”

Apparently the thrust of the small arms treaty negotiations is actually …..your small arms.

There is no possible, conceivable way that the US government is going to discontinue or even reduce noticeably the sale of all kinds of arms, even to the countries we have and are waging war on.  We sell billions each year to the same countries our government tells us are our enemies. So we know this treaty isn’t going to do squat about the billions upon billions being spent world-wide buying up weapons world-wide.

Crap, our own Attorney General was caught running guns (oops! WALKING guns–sounds much nicer) into Mexico to be distributed and used against our border patrol and citizens along the southern border……… really think they are going to stop selling every possible weapon they can come up with to other countries?  Do you really think they are going to halt or even limit the sales of all kinds of arms by military defense contractors?

So what do you think the real intent of this small arms treaty is?  It is the disarmament of the US citizenry.  Our own government knows it would be a constitutional Armageddon to strike down the 2nd Amendment.  But if you say you are trying to create a safe world for kids and if you route the striking down of the 2nd through the United Nations and some anti-American, unconstitutional treaty, I suppose you could try to claim some kind of plausible deniability.

(never mind that we have bombed, shot, blown up, tested biological weapons on, exposed to depleted uranium, destroyed water supplies, destroyed food supplies, denied medical care, poisoned them with vaccines and god knows what else we have done to the children of the world, it is your right to own a gun that is the problem)

In the end I can only have one position on this:  Hillary Clinton, nor anyone else has the right or the authority to arbitrarily engage any foreign entity or agent in any conversation or negotiation which affects our rights, or which would substantially and arbitrarily affect our right to defend ourselves especially when our own government and the Homeland Terrorism Department represent the greatest threat we face.

To do so is, and should be treated as treason.


**Reposting and reblogging: Retitling to redirect traffic will be treated as [theft of content]. No modifications of any kind are allowed. Original URL must be embedded in the repost and all author credits clearly visible, including copyright.