Rand Paul Explains Obama’s Imminent Plan To Destroy The Bill of Rights

Dear Fellow Patriot,

Anti-gun statists around the globe believe they have it made.

The United Nations is done with its dirty work finalizing the details of their so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”

With the full backing of the Obama administration for this outrageous anti-gun scheme from day one, time is running out until an all-out Senate ratification showdown on the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.”

If you and I are going to beat this Treaty, we simply must fight back NOW before it’s too late.

I’m doing everything I can to help expose the TRUTH about this radical scheme.

But today I’m asking you to join me by taking a public stand against the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty” by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away.

With the national media still pushing anti-gun propaganda after the horrific tragedy in Connecticut, President Obama and his anti-Second Amendment pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.’s global gun control crown jewel.

Reading through the details of the Treaty, it’s hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault.


In fact, Article V of the Treaty mandates countries establish a “National Control List” — or NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!

You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.

But the truth is, the U.N. is already plotting the next step — developing new “International Small Arms Control Standards” (ISACS). Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.”

Introductory language already includes:

***  Mandated national “screening” for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you’re “competent” enough to own a gun;

***  Licenses for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!

***  Restrictions on how many guns and ammo any properly-licensed individual may legally own;

***  Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;

***  Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense — unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.

That’s why your IMMEDIATE action is so important.


To those who think government holds all the answers, the United States isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand “utopian” designs for all of us.

And as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by bureaucrats, those who want big government on a global scale will be out of luck.

That’s why I was so excited to see the National Association for Gun Rights leading the fight to stop the U.N.’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty!”

Their efforts over the past few months have stymied President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid every time they’ve sought to ram gun control through the Senate.

In fact, without NAGR’s bare-knuckled, no-compromise tactics, I believe President Obama would have already succeeded in passing any number of anti-Second Amendment schemes.

But the truth is, NAGR depends on the action and support of good folks like you for their effectiveness.

So will you join them by going on record AGAINST global gun control and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey today?


Thanks to the help of good folks like you, the National Association for Gun Rights has taken the lead role in Washington, D.C. beating back gun control schemes.

But the stakes couldn’t be higher with the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.”  So there’s no time to waste.

After all, the last thing President Obama wants is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical agenda.

The gun control crowd has made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty” into law since the mid-1990s.

Already, parts of the U.N.’s radical agenda are slipping through covertly. In fact, Obama’s State Department even bragged that Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious are implementations of the U.N. anti-Second Amendment agenda!

Then you and I saw President Obama issue a flurry of anti-gun executive orders in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy targeting law-abiding gun owners.

Once President Obama decides the time is ripe to submit the Treaty, this fight is going to move FAST.

So if you and I are going to defeat this U.N. Treaty, we have to turn the heat up on Congress right now before it’s too late!1.  Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

2.  Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?

If you said “Yes!” to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.


With your help, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue to turn up the heat on targeted Senators who are working to implement the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.”

Direct mail.  Phones.  E-mail.  Blogs.  Guest editorials.  Press conferences.  Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits.  The whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

So along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Rand Paul Explains Obama’s Imminent Plan To Destroy The Bill of Rights

  1. omanuel says:

    Thank you for this post.

    For reasons summarized on Professor Curry’s blog, I believe Stalin had the power and influence to mold world government after the USSR form of government after August 1945:

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/13/communicating-climate-science-reconsidered/#comment-608273

  2. Shazaam says:

    I don’t know why Rand has his panties in a knot over that.

    Given that the UN doesn’t enforce any of it’s anti-war charter functions against the US, why would they suddenly get religion and enforce an anti-gun treaty?

    When the International Court of Justice hauls the current administration into court for war crimes (past administrations too) for the inconvenient fact that all their publicly stated excuses for going to war turned out to be as reliable as an Obama Campaign Promise, then and only then will I worry about the UN enforcing a small arms treaty.

    Otherwise, the UN is just another paper tiger.

    • _Jim says:

      re: Shazaam July 15, 2014 at 3:06 am
      I don’t know why Rand has his panties in a knot over that.

      Given that the UN doesn’t enforce any of it’s anti-war charter functions against the US, why would they suddenly get religion and enforce an anti-gun treaty?

      b/c all the panty-waist liberals in our country would see to it that it got enforced.

      Can’t you imagine Nancy Pelosi (you have to pass the bill to see what’s in it) and demented (‘five white men on the supreme court’) Harry Reid pounding this issue in the press each day til the spineless gutless repubs cave?

      After all, IT’S FOR THE CHILLEN!!!!

      That’s the danger I see … (IOW, don’t try to apply rational concepts in your mind to liberals, as they are dysfunctional and will do the irrational thing time and time again.)

      .

      • Shazaam says:

        That would be a legal precedent they (the panty-waist liberals) do NOT want to set.

        The legal precedent of demanding one UN treaty be enforced to the letter opens the door to enforcing the other treaties equally and thus to have their golfing messiah hauled into the UN dock on war crimes.

        And I would think that the panty-waist liberals would be deathly afraid of that outcome.

        Though it is always possible that they (the panty-waist liberals) are anal enough about gun control to throw their messiah (the laughingstock-in-chief) to the UN wolves to get that illusory bit of control. However, I would predict that the UN would find such a treaty nearly impossible to enforce on it’s own.

        • B says:

          all enforcement is selective.

        • squid2112 says:

          I like how they try to threaten violation of our Constitution through U.N. usurpation. No treaty is valid if it contradicts our Constitution. Don’t let dimwits fool you into believing otherwise. You cannot circumvent our Constitution through international treaty. Not legally anyway, unless you can fool the people into believing you can. Our government can sign all the gun control/ban treaties they want, they still aren’t getting any of my guns.

        • _Jim says:

          Do any of the provisions listed below ‘strictly’ violate the constitution, in particular the 2nd amendment, as _no_ outright bans are proposed?

          Rather, we already have a few laws like these ‘on the books’ (background checks for purchases, state issuance of CHL, strict licensing of machine guns) and in some states (like New York for example) there are limitations on magazine capacity:

          .

          a) Article V of the Treaty mandates countries establish a “National Control List” – or NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database … this first step in gun of registration could be considered the first step toward confiscation as it has been used historically in other countries.

          .

          b) The “International Small Arms Control Standards” (ISACS) goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.” Introductory language already includes:

          1) Mandated national “screening” for all persons seeking to own guns. This gives bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you’re “competent” enough to own a gun.

          2) Licenses for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns.

          3) Restrictions on how many guns and ammo any properly-licensed individual may legally own.

          4) Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds.

          – – – – – –

        • Lou says:

          Tell that to millions of people killed by Nazis, USSR, Communist China, etc… You’re not very bright if you have to question this… http://archive.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams55.1.html

  3. _Jim says:

    An interesting production:

    “OBAMA: FALSE HOPE, FALSE MESSIAH”

    .

  4. kuhnkat says:

    Rand prefers to do it through AMNESTY that he and fellow travelers vote on…

    • omanuel says:

      Senator Rand Paul, the son of former Congressman Ron Paul, is not one of the politicians that speaks fluently out of both sides of their mouths !

      There is another politician named Rand that possesses those skills.

  5. Andy Oz says:

    “The Obama administration has prosecuted three times as many people under the 1917 Espionage Act as all previous presidents combined.” – Bill Bonner.

    http://www.bonnerandpartners.com/land-of-the-free-dont-make-us-laugh/#.U8SymqYazCQ

    Now they want your guns? For your safety. Yeah. Right.

  6. Chip Bennett says:

    No international treaty trumps the Constitution. We The People (with the guns) understand that, and ultimately, that’s all that matters, because enough Congresscritters know that we understand that, and that we have the guns.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Chip! “No international treaty trumps the Constitution.”

      Personally, I agree with you; no treaty may trump the Constitution. There are those who disagree, however. Just as there are those who think (wrongly) that the Second Amendment applies only to the militia, there are also those who think (wrongly) that a treaty may, in fact, trump the Constitution. Here is the clause in question:
      (begin quote)
      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
      (end quote)

      This seems pretty clear to me. A treaty may over rule a State Constitution, or a State law, but a treaty may not trump the Constitution because treaties must be made “in Pursuance of” the Constitution and “Under the Authority of the United States” which means under the limitations of the Constitution. You and I agree on that — but not everyone agrees. Some people read the clause as saying (wrongly) that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made… shall be the supreme Law of the Land”. They say that treaties trump even the Constitution.

      I only mention this so that we can be ready when the Powers That Be tell us the lie that we are bound by a treaty and that it over rules the Constitution. If they try to justify the gun grabbing by invoking a treaty, know that this is how they will claim authority.

    • _Jim says:

      Taking a look at the provisions in the treaty that don’t look to ‘strictly’ violate the constitution, in particular the 2nd amendment via an outright ban of guns, are any of the proposed portions of the treaty listed below out of the question as far as enactment via treaty?

      Note, we already have a few laws like these ‘on the books’ (background checks for purchases, state issuance of CHL, strict licensing of machine guns) and in some states (like New York for example) there are already limitations on magazine capacity:

      .

      a) Article V of the Treaty mandates countries establish a “National Control List” – or NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database … this first step in gun of registration could be considered the first step toward confiscation as it has been used historically in other countries.

      .

      b) The “International Small Arms Control Standards” (ISACS) goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.” Introductory language already includes:

      1) Mandated national “screening” for all persons seeking to own guns. This gives bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you’re “competent” enough to own a gun.

      2) Licenses for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns.

      3) Restrictions on how many guns and ammo any properly-licensed individual may legally own.

      4) Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds.

      – – – – – –

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Yes, I think all of those are inherent infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, and are therefore inherently unconstitutional.

        But there’s another clause in the constitution that is germane to your question:

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Jim, yes, as Chris says, all those provisions are violations of the Second Amendment. Which means, pragmatically speaking, absolutely nothing. The Powers That Be will continue to do whatever they can get away with, Constitution be damned. It is rare that I agree with Chairman Mao, but as he said, “political power flows from the muzzle of a gun.” We The People may still own guns, but The Powers That Be have more than guns; they have the willingness to use them against us.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Jason Calley July 15, 2014 at 8:11 pm
          … all those provisions are violations of the Second Amendment.

          Funny, I’m not seeing that. Where you see a ‘duck’ I see a goose.

          I think that you just automatically knee-jerk into a “all those provisions are violations of the Second Amendment” stance without out any rational thought processes taking place, because, like Pavlov’s dog, you have been ‘conditioned’ by someone or some organization.

          In one form or another, 3 of 4 of those provisos in “b)” above have been enacted in local, state or federal law, just not perhaps all in federal law. Perhaps you are unaware of the specifics on this (and would not be as educated on this subject as you seem to assert.)

          Note well, again, Jason (and Chip) ‘guns’ per se have not been banned nor are they to be banned under the provisos in “b)”..

          .

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Note well, again, Jason (and Chip) ‘guns’ per se have not been banned nor are they to be banned under the provisos in “b)”

          And yet, recent SCOTUS decisions have reinforced the principle that the right to keep and bear arms without infringement means the right to keep and bear arms in common usage. Further, bearing arms requires access to ammunition for firearms; otherwise, those firearms are reduced to nothing more than instruments of blunt trauma.

          ANY infringement on keeping and bearing arms requires articulation of a compelling government interest, in the context of a lack of other means to accomplish that interest. (Yes: strict scrutiny applies.) Magazine capacity limits have zero impact on any compelling government interest, and as such are an unconstitutional infringement. As for so-called “assault” weapons: murder and other violent crime rates have declined – somewhat drastically – since the expiration of the Clinton AWB (a decline trend that began before the ban, and that was unaffected by the ban).

          And again: regardless of what may have been enacted at the state or municipal level: what may be constitutional at those levels is not constitutional at the federal level, unless specifically enumerated as such in the constitution. (Yes, the tenth amendment applies to second amendment issues.)

        • M Simon says:

          You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.

          Yep.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Jim! I find your response wonderfully unconvincing. Ignoring your usual ad homs, here are a few reasons:

          You say, “In one form or another, 3 of 4 of those provisos in “b)” above have been enacted in local, state or federal law, just not perhaps all in federal law.”

          Yes, and this demonstrates exactly what? For almost a hundred years, local, state and federal governments had no problem with legislation requiring that minority races not be allowed to attend the same schools as the majority race — in spite of the clear words of the Constitution that all citizens be treated equal under the law. The existence of laws that infringe on people’s ability to keep and bear arms does prove their validity under the Second Amendment — it only means that the laws in question are illegal.

          You say, “Note well, again, Jason (and Chip) ‘guns’ per se have not been banned nor are they to be banned under the provisos in “b)”..”

          Are you somehow under the impression that The Second Amendment says, “guns shall not be banned”? The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be “infringed”, not “banned.” As for your reference to “guns”, the Second Amendment never used that word either; it uses the far more general and all encompassing word, “arms”. That would include the magazines, the ammo, the sights, the stocks, the swords, the cannons, the pikes, the sawed off shotguns, the switchblades, the flash suppressors, the hand grenades, and the what-evers that a soldier might wish to arm himself with. Why? So that at any time, an armed populace could be drawn upon for active service in the militia.

          You (and others) may not like the Second Amendment. You may think that it goes too far for today’s digital world. That is fine. In that case it is incumbent upon you to amend the Constitution if you can. Attempting to bypass the highest law of the US by simply passing illegal infringing legislation is a scam, and not worthy of honest citizens or politicians.

  7. Cultural Marxism Kills says:

    Article 2 Section 2
    “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”

    Follow along comrades; The President is the commander of the military. The military of the USA has been rolled into other bodies being NATO and the UN. We perceive our lives as Citizens of the USA though in truth our government is the Public Relations Bureau for the DoD and everything in its command. The USA is now being thrust into the North American Union (by treaty power) and soon will enter Martial law since our economy has been destroyed by the insurgency from abroad. During Martial law the entire Constitution is suspended. Continuity of government (COG) replaces the Constitution during Martial law, attacks and so on.
    The KGB used this recipe…
    Demoralize, Destabilize, Insurgency and Normalize
    and now so does the rest of the world. We’re so cool that we arte going to “Demand Destruction” our own people. Don’t worry when a purge comes, instead hope that you don’t go to a camp.

    Oh and have a look at this propaganda…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2693105/Giant-hole-appears-Siberia-Huge-crater-emerges-end-world.html

  8. M Simon says:

    Cultural Marxism Kills says:
    July 15, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    The Daily Mail link was a total waste – unless you like tabloid news.

  9. john burns says:

    Treaties do not trump the Constitution. Obviously. Otherwise, the Senate and President could eliminate the House entirely with one or do other crazy things. It is not a sneeky way to amend the Constitution. And in passing there is no provision in the Constitution for marital law in the wild sense people believe, The President actually has very limited powers and declaring marital law is not one of them. Too many myths haunt this nation.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey john, I agree with you, treaties do NOT trump the Constitution — but be aware that if the Powers That Be wish to argue the opposite, they will.

      “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      Note that last phrase, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” To me, it clearly refers to State constitutions, but a lawyer will argue that it refers to the US Constitution and to State Laws. Politicians have argued this interpretation before; John Foster Dulles, secretary of state under President Dwight Eisenhower, asserted that “treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example … can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” Of course he was wrong… but the average low-information voter could be easily convinced it was true if CNBC and Fox both repeated it a few times.

      • Jason Calley says:

        By the way, minor point… when the US Constitution is referring to itself, it usually uses the phrase “this” Constitution, and refers to State Constitutions as “the” Constitution. There may be some exceptions, but they do not come to mind just offhand.

  10. Cultural Marxism Kills says:

    “Since the days of the Cold War, the United States has had a plan in place to continue the operation of the government following a catastrophic attack on the nation’s capital. Because of its sensitive nature, details from the classified “Continuity of Government Plan” have been kept secret, even from Members of the House Homeland Security Committee. As further proof that the Obama Administration is the most open and transparent in history, the White House has decided to brief the American People on this important program.”

    “details from the classified “Continuity of Government Plan” have been kept secret, even from Members of the House Homeland Security Committee.”

    http://whitehouse.gov1.info/continuity-plan/

    Now who are these people on these trains??
    http://patdollard.com/2014/06/exposed-surge-of-illegal-alien-children-totally-planned-by-obama/

    This is an in your face INSURGENCY that will cause ECONOMIC DESTABILIZATION. Normalization will be accomplished by deepening the “police state” and ultimately Martial Law. The Constitution is irrelevant at this point. Citizens would never tolerate any laws or codes that deprived them of personal property like “ARMS.” The people have already capitulated by simply being DEMORALIZED. Why is it that “THEY” came up with “Global Warming?” To begin a global program of “DEMAND DESTRUCTION” implemented to cut the population.

    When a person says, “That is impossible; That is ridiculous; They/We would never do that” and so on we see the demoralization at work and must realize that that person is in denial and so is lost for all time. Choosing what propaganda to believe is useless since all of it is propaganda designed to DEMORALIZE the mass mind. A mind F orgy if you will. If the government lies about one thing to your face like “Global Warming/Weather Change” and no matter what you do the big lie persists maybe you might consider the possibility that you are already “Under Martial Law”!?!?!?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s