It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chuck Norris Speaks Out: Barack Obama's gun control is `under the radar`

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by snarfbot

a right granted by the second amendment of the constitution, what wikipedia calls the "supreme laws" of the united states.

obama is a bum.

I very much fear that Chuck Norris is correct.

TPTB (the Dulles brothers in particular) have been busy trying to say TREATIES supercede the CONSTITUTION. That is also what Al Gore's Best Buddy, Maurice Strong says as well as the United Nations Commission on Global Governance.

There is plenty of evidence the Chuck Norris is correct. Here are a selection of documents that prove it.

Our Global Neighborhood

Report of the Commission on Global Governance
(ISBN 0-19-827998-1; Published by Oxford University Press, 1995)

...Next to life, liberty is what people value most,". the report says. It also says: ."The impulse to possess turf is a powerful one for all species; yet it is one that people must overcome.". It also says: ."global rules of custom constrain the freedom of sovereign states,". and ."sensitivity over the relationship between international responsibility and national sovereignty [is a] considerable obstacle to the leadership at the international level,". and ."Although states are sovereign, they are not free individually to do whatever they want.". Maurice Strong, a member of the Commission, and a likely candidate for the position of Secretary General, said in an essay entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation: ."It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.".

...Global governance will "Embody this ethic in the evolving system of international norms, adapting, where necessary, existing norms of sovereignty and self-determination to changing realities." The effectiveness of this global ethic "will depend upon the ability of people and governments to transcend narrow self-interests and agree that the interests of humanity as a whole will be best served by acceptance of a set of common rights and responsibilities. Without the objectives and limits that a global ethic would provide, however, global civil society could become unfocused and even unruly. That could make effective global governance difficult."

This earlier piece makes it plain that "Sovereignty" is viewed as an obstacle to be overcome so that "Global Governance" may be achieved.

Also in 1995, the same year this report came out, Bill Clinton ratified the World Trade Organization. A year ago (July 1, 2010 ) in The Global Journal, Pascal Lamy, Director, World Trade Organization wrote this article:

Of What Use is Global Governance?

I define global governance as the system assisting human society to achieve common objectives in a sustainable (i.e., fair and just) manner. Growing interdependence means that our laws, standards, and values, as well as the other social mechanisms that shape human behaviour, need to be analyzed, discussed, understood, and articulated in the most coherent way possible. This, in my opinion, is the condition for truly sustainable development in economic, social, and environmental terms.....

...the European Union, the very incarnation of an international organization of integration in which Member States have agreed to relinquish sovereignty in order to strengthen the coherence and effectiveness of their actions....

Our challenge today is to establish a system of global governance that provides a better balance between leadership, effectiveness, and legitimacy on the one hand, and coherence on the other, ...

If there is one place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tested since the Second World War, it is in Europe. European integration is the most ambitious supranational governance experience ever undertaken. It is the story of interdependence desired, defined, and organized by the Member States. In no respect is the work complete—...

The essence of the E.U. is already at the heart of this first initiative: the creation of an area of joint sovereignty, a space in which members agree to manage their relationship without the constant need for international treaties. What characterizes the paradigm of European governance is, thus, the combination of three elements: political will, a defined goal, and an institutional structure. The method of governance employed is certainly a major technological leap from Westphalian principles.

One innovation is the primacy of E.U. law over national law; another is the existence of a commission with a monopoly on legislative initiative; a third is the creation of a court whose decisions are binding on national courts;

a fourth is the creation of a bicameral parliamentary system with, on one side, the Council that represents member states, and on the other, the European Parliament that represents the citizens. These are major institutional innovations, of course...

The economic crisis we are experiencing has accelerated the transformation of global governance toward a new architecture....

This article makes it even more clear that "Global Governance" is envisioned as an actual world government with Sovereign nations demoted to the status of "states" and we in the USA know how much freedom is left to the states

'Global Governance 2025′ by US & EU Intelligence Agencies (by a group who got info from FOIA contains link to CIA report)

The National Intelligence Council's 2025 Project PDF from US government

Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture | Atlantic Council

Global Governance 2025 | Atlantic Council

This report analyzes the gap between current international governance institutions, organizations and norms and the demands for global governance likely to be posed by long-term strategic challenges over the next 15 years. The report is the product of research and analysis by the NIC and EUISS following a series of international dialogues co-organized by the Atlantic Council, TPN, and other partner organizations in Beijing, Tokyo, Dubai, New Delhi, Pretoria, Sao Paulo & Brasilia, Moscow, and Paris. The executive summary is below.

Executive Summary

Global governance—the collective management of common problems at the international level—is at a critical juncture. Although global governance institutions have racked up many successes since their development after the Second World War, the growing number of issues on the international agenda, and their complexity, is outpacing the ability of international organizations and national governments to cope.

With the emergence of rapid globalization, the risks to the international system have grown to the extent that formerly localized threats are no longer locally containable but are now potentially dangerous to global security and stability....

We assess that the multiple and diverse governance frameworks, however flexible, probably are not going to be sufficient to keep pace with the looming number of transnational and global challenges absent extensive institutional reforms and innovations. The capacities of the current institutional patchwork will be stretched by the type of problems facing the global order over the next few decades....

Those documents make it pretty darn clear that the push for "Global Governance" is comming from several sources. The United Nations, the World Trade Organization and even our US National Intelligence Council.

It is also very clear that "Global Governance" means the US Constitution will take a "Back Seat" so yes Chuck Norris is correct. American citicens can no longer rely on the US Constitution to protect us with a bunch of Traitors in DC ready and willing to give away our country.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:38 AM
I would gladly turn in my weapons and ammo to those that come to collect it.

One round at a time.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:50 AM
Firstly who wrote what chuck spoke?????????????
I bet ya it wasn't him.

Seriously WTF america, theyre Freaking actors for %^$# sake.
What are you doing listening to actors

No wonder your country is up the proverbial creek.
But this is what happens when sheeple are listening to actors that are trying to act smart and all political like.
You may as well get Paris Hilton to start backing your cause too.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by meathed

his son wrote most of the stuff, little kid, maybe 6-9yo.

everyone else just ran with it.

sob is still tough.

eta; paris is so last week!
edit on 26-8-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:49 AM
Since I happen to have the research that shows how these %$#@ TRAITORS give away our Constitutional rights, I thought I would post this illustration since it gives a very good picture of the underhanded sneakiness of these illegitimate sons of syphilitic She-camels.

The first of this crap is now hitting the Federal Register now. We have about 60 days to flood the Federal Register with comments in hope of killing the new regulation like we did when they tried to get it "approved" last time. SEE THREAD for details:

Saga of Global Governance of the Food Supply à la Kissinger

Clinton and Congress ratified the GATT trade agreement in the winter of 1994. This formed a new international trade body, the World Trade Organization (WTO). WTO had stronger authority of enforcement (a secret tribunal) and covered a wide range of trade such as agriculture and intellectual property rights.

During the ratification debate of the WTO Agreement, Congress was justifiably worried that the multinational pact was in conflict with U.S. Sovereignty.  Arguments for ratification were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement past Congress. Congressional fears were lulled by the Administration pointing out Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw from the WTO.  Also a feature of the Uruguay Round agreements are described as follows:

The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted. § 3512 (a) states: "No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect." Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to "amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety", or to "limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974."

This is how the traitors in the Clinton Administration got the Trojan Horse Treaty ratified.

Once passed the USDA leaped into action.

....the USDA decided to move to the HACCP system of inspection. Based on the idea that the plant operator knows the plant better than the USDA, the responsibility for designing an inspection system was turned over to each individual plant.

.... USDA “officials initially described HACCP to the industry in the mid-90’s, the agency made the following enticing promises:

* “Under HACCP, the agency will implement a ‘Hands Off’ role in meat inspection.
* “Under HACCP, the agency will no longer police the industry, but the industry will police itself.
* “Under HACCP, the agency will disband its previous command and control authority.
* “Under HACCP, each plant will write its own HACCP Plan, and the agency cannot tell plants what must be in their HACCP Plans.”

As a result, the plant operator was required to identify potential hazards and the critical points in the process where those hazards could come into play. The plant would then identify procedures that would be used to minimize the hazard risk at those control points. The plant would be responsible for the implementation of the plan.

As a result, the inspector was no longer responsible for what was happening on the plant floor: that was left to company personnel. The new role of the inspector was to make sure that plant personnel were carrying out their duties in a manner consistent with the HACCP plan. In many cases this amounted to making sure that all of the paper work was in the proper order....”

In addition Government testing labs were closed and disease surveillance was cut back to near useless levels.

Summary of Tuberculosis Surveillance in California Cattle

Number of Cattle Tested........1995.....1996.....1997.......1998.......1999......2000.....2001
By Animal Health Officials...10,576...5,100 ....2,861 .....3,530.....1,425 ....1,967.....2,500
By Private Veterinarians ...15,921...17,100...19,930...18,189...22,863...19,930...19,587
Submissions at Slaughter..........39..........58 .........64...........39...........58..........64.........385

As any sane person would expect the incidence of Food Borne Disease increased. (It more than doubled) and the USDA embarked on a campaign to SHIELD THE GIANTS In addition thanks to the WTO policy of open borders, no quarantine and no testing, Mexican Cattle with Tuberculosis crossed the border and California, New Mexico and Texas have lost their hard won "Disease Free Status"

Meanwhile the FDA had the balls to publish this on their website in 2008 despite the fact "the URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection"!

International Harmonization

“The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions...”

Despite not one but two Congressional investigations (where the bureaucrats lied through their teeth) Congress decided that FARMERS not HACCP was the obvious cause of the increase in food born disease and therefore HACCP must be applied to farms as well as food processing plants. In addition the new Law just passed in 2010 gives the World Trade Organization complete control of all regulations governing the US Food Supply.

The "Food Safety Modernization Act" just being passed in December 2010 g0es in effect 2012.
The new law includes the following section:
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

The World Trade Organization and the United Nations (OIE and FAO) are well prepared to take control. Here is the "Official" information about what is in store for us in the not too distant future. Useful for convincing family or friends that you really are not crazy.

Links: FDA website: - Full Text of the Law
See the left side bar for information like - (Frequently Asked Questions)

(Notice how the actual law references not only the World Trade Organization but Good Agricultural Practices by NAME!!!!)

These are from United Nations FAO and OIE (Good Farming/Agriculture Practices)

FAO GAPs (fruits and veggies)

“What are Good Agricultural Practices?

...A multiplicity of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) codes, standards and regulations have been developed in recent years by the food industry and producers organizations but also governments and NGOs, aiming to codify agricultural practices at farm level for a range of commodities....” [has links]

OIE Good Farming Practices: Livestock

Good Dairy Farming Practice

Short Report of what the S.O.B.s are up to: OIE WORKING GROUP ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD SAFETY Report to the 77th General Session of the OIE International Committee - Paris, 24–29 May 2009

This gives the FDA's Views on Freedom

...the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submitted its response to a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF)....

Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular...
* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]

* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]

"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:57 AM
Chuck has been spotted frequently at Los Alomos with his nunchacoos.....rumour goes they need him to split atoms..

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:04 AM
hhhhhhhmmmmm chuck norris, his last name sounds familiar lol

edit on 26/8/2011 by DaveNorris because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:18 AM
The UN doesn't stand for "The United Nations". It stands for "Under Norris"

Know your role UN, Chuck is on top of things.
edit on 26-8-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:24 AM
Does anybody remember the following thread?

Above Top Secret

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by Planet teleX


Chuck Norris mention makes points invalid

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by CherubBaby

Barack Obama has shown zero interest in touching the gun issue. In fact with the Supreme Court finally applying the second amendment to the States after the District of Columbia tried to ban them I'd say that our guns are safer now than they ever have been.

It appears the momentum is actually anti-gun restriction now in America.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:59 AM
Don't forget Fast and Furious. A blatant attempt to give the UN what they needed to push it.

And for the record, Chuck Noris wears TreadUpon pajamas...

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:02 AM
Every time I see a video of Obama being asked about guns I swear I can see him grimace slightly. I think he filed this issue in his "never to be looked at" file. He seems fine letting the courts work it out with the current laws.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by CherubBaby

PS They can Have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands!!!

Your proposal is the rockets!

If everyone martyrs themselves in this manner, there will be nobody to fight for the cause. Remember strategery beats brawn every time!

Don't go down in a bull-headed blaze of glory, fight now through legislation and voting for the right candidates, and fight later through strategic compliance. Give up the "registered" guns with minimal resistance. Don't face off against an overwhelming force, just make sure you have a back-up plan.
* * *
In all actuality, nobody is ever coming for your guns. They will make it harder and harder to purchase guns, and they will make it more and more socially unacceptable, and your grand-kids will be so indoctrinated, they won't even want guns, and then someone will come along and offer to trade a Ipad8 for your old heirloom weapons, and they will be given up voluntarily. They will never try to take them by force.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:35 AM
Poor little male gun owners...always afraid they are going to take that which makes them a man...well in their eyes...

I pity your families....without a weapon...your just scared little school girls....first sign of trouble...I recommend curling up in the fetal position and sucking your thumbs...

I laugh when someone starts a thread..about gun always get your internet tough guys....I pity the anyone who tries to take my guns away...or...pry them out of my cold dead hands....oooo...scary...

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by kro32

Are you just the counter argument in every thread lately? No matter what the topic is.... even Chuck Norris.... you will debunk it?

Chuck Norris - un-debunkable

Chuck Norris = automatic star & flag

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by TreadUpon
Don't forget Fast and Furious. A blatant attempt to give the UN what they needed to push it.

And for the record, Chuck Noris wears TreadUpon pajamas...

I really do not care who Chuck Noris is or what he says. However I DO care what former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton says!

'After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms..The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise"

And I care about is what the United Nations and the US government is up to.

Both are really really good at "Boil the Frog"

When Clinton signed the World Trade Organization Treaty in 1995 did you expect the WTO, and the UN -FAO & OIE to be put in charge of writing US Farming regulations by 2010??? Well guess what they are.

Here is step one and two of "Boil the Frog" a treaty in 1998 about international trade in "Small Arms" and later in 2005 "registration and transfer of title of small arms".

The reports for Congress are often very bias or outright lies. Wikileaks made available some on farming issues that would be down right comical if they were not so dangerous.

CRS Report for Congress
The United Nations and “Gun Control”

...On July 28, 1998, the U.N. Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution recommending that nation states work towards “elaboration of an international instrument to combat the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition” within the context of a United Nations convention against transnational organized crime. This resolution had been recommended to the Council by the April 1998 meeting of the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. On December 9, 1998, the U.N. General Assembly, without a vote, adopted Resolution 53/111...

The United States signed this Convention on November 11, 1997; it was transmitted to the Senate on June 9, 1998 (105th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Treaty Document 105-49). Hearings have not been held. According to the State Department, the Preamble to this treaty

makes clear that the Convention is intended to address the problem of transnational trafficking in firearms, and is not meant to regulate the internal firearms trade of the States Parties. The Preamble expressly recognizes, for example, that the Convention “does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession or trade of a wholly domestic character....” 6

Under way in early 2005 are negotiations by an Open-Ended Working Group on Tracing Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons aimed at a draft international instrument (treaty) for the “timely and reliable identification” and tracing of illicit small arms and light weapons. The second meeting was held January 24 to February 4, 2005, with a third substantive session scheduled for June 6 to 17, 2005....

The Council encouraged “international and regional cooperation in identifying the origin and transfer of small arms and light weapons in order to prevent their diversion, in particular, to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.” It welcomed the “ongoing efforts by [the] open- ended working negotiate an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons...”

U.S. representatives have focused on the need to combat organized crime and to reduce out-of-control violence and conflict by limiting the availability of firearms, light weapons, and small arms that contribute to and aggravate these situations. They have made it clear that the reduction of crime and conflict is a primary goal of the United States....any international treaties in this area would not bind the United States unless these documents were acted on favorably by the U.S. Senate, if the President decided to transmit the treaty to the Senate for its consideration.
SOURCE: Congressional Research Service ̃ The Library of Congress

The United Nations has:
1. Indicated an interest in "the availability of firearms, light weapons, and small arms"
2. Indicated an interest in “international and regional cooperation in identifying the origin and transfer of small arms and light weapons" otherwise known as gun registration the first step in gun confiscation is knowing where all the guns are.

Moving ahead in time we have this article.

Washington Times May 27, 2010

This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult - if not outright illegal - for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to “prevent, combat and eradicate” various classes of guns to undermine “the illicit trade in small arms.” Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.....

...former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns.

After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms..The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

Sure sounds like Chuck Norris, who ever the heck he is had this one NAILED.

edit on 26-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: fumble fingers

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by kro32

Are you just the counter argument in every thread lately? No matter what the topic is.... even Chuck Norris.... you will debunk it?

Chuck Norris - un-debunkable

Chuck Norris = automatic star & flag

I simply put out facts and you may interpret those anyway you like.

Nothing incorrect with what i've stated whatsoever.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:50 AM
It will be a cold day in H#LL when I let another government tell me what I can and cannot do with my firearms.

I say. Bring it on. Let them try.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:14 PM
Finally, an opinion from Walker, Texas Ranger. When Howlin' Mad Murdoch chimes in, then I guess we'll be all set.

<< 1    3 >>

log in