Welcome to The Truth News.Info

Hope you enjoy your visit!

U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban
nationalgunrights.org

The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN ďis trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but thereís no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.Ē

Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.

The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious, anti-gun treaty…

. . .and that’s where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.

Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.

As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

Thatís why itís vital you sign the special petition Iíve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UNís ďSmall Arms Treaty.Ē

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN ďSmall Arms Treaty,Ē you and I can get a good idea of whatís likely in the works.

Don’t let any of the “experts” lull you to sleep by saying “Oh, we have it handled” or “Until you know exactly what’s in the treaty you can’t fight against it.”

Judging by Ambassador Bolton’s comments — who certainly knows what to expect from the American-freedom-hating international crowd that infests the U.N. — we are certain the treaty’s going to address the private ownership of firearms.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate (which is where we must ultimately make our stand), the UN ďSmall Arms TreatyĒ would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL ďunauthorizedĒ civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION. So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before itís too late!

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Here’s what you can do to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight Hillary Clinton and her United Nations cronies:

ē Click here and sign our petition to DEMAND that your United States Senators vote AGAINST the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

ē Forward this petition to your friends and relatives who share your concern for American sovereignty and protecting our right to keep and bear arms.

Comments:

DMShore said:
That b$#ch Hillary Clinton is the leading as#%^$e in the country. It is people like her that cause civil wars and deserve to be the first ones to go. I hope everyone that has a brain in their head votes this fall and send the scum home.

John said:
The clintons are wonderfull, they brought us the Anti Terrorism act now the Patriot Act and Military Commisions Act through the bombing in Oklahoma city and the failed 93 WTC bombing. And don't forget about us domestic terrorist... Ruby Ridge massacre and Waco. Thanks to Clinton we all know now to watch out for those evil Americans. The Clintons are great, they brought us China gate and give secrets to our friends just don't you become a friend with them, don't forget what has happened to many "friends" of the Clinton's

Ben said:
Donít get me wrong here. Iím a strong proponent of our second amendment rights, and I would fight to the death for it. But Iím not totally convinced yet, that the Obama administration is trying to take our gun rights away though the U.N. Mr. Boltonís is just a little pissed off he didnít get confirmed by the Senate for his seat at the U.N. So itís kind of hard to believe in what he is saying about issues with the U.N. As Quoted here by Paul Valone ďMoreover, any treaty produced by the conference must be ratified by individual member nations Ė something which, in the United States, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution requires be done by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. This is the point at which all hell would break loose if a U.N. small arms treaty threatened Second Amendment freedoms". I donít believe that all of our Congressman and Senators want our second amendment removed from the books. Iím not saying that there not trying, indeed they are and I hope they go! down burning. I just believe they are not going about it this way. I believe they are going about it in different ways then this. But itís hard to make a real conclusion about this issue without being able to read it first (Arms Trade Treaty). It seems like we are going off people words in what they believe or there spin as illustrated here. John I have attached both side of issue here and Iím a little confused on which one is right. Iím just like you in the fact, they are doing everything in there power to remove every right we have. The second amendment is a Constitutional right that will be very hard for the Government to over turn. There are a lot of protections for our gun rights. What Iím saying here is that there are tons of hoops to jump though to get it done. You are right in the fact, they are taking our Gun rights little by little, and that is how our Government gets away with things they do, because no one notices small issues. As far as the U.N. concerns me, t! hey can get the hell out of this country today. I hate what they stand for and by God they are a foreign agency and they should be removed from our land now. Below are some of the fore and against and some articles I have read to help in my decision to make this comment. I hope that my comment doesnít offend anyone here. Iím just telling like I see it, and would like to see future articles on this issue for follow up.
http://scpatriotsclub.com/blog/?p=82
http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=359
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/
http://www.undispatch.com/node/9553
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-charlotte/un-small-arms-treaty-how-big-is-the-threat-part-1

John said:
I hear you Ben, America is still the last fronteer of freedom, as little that is left unless you can buy it(licenses, permits etc). Our gun rights as you know have been so limited and trampled on now they pretty much in some states just take them from you every chance they get. What scares me the most is, as you stated "Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution requires be done by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate" we cannot rely on our Congress or Senate for our freedoms and liberties anymore, as I see it they are now for the corporation and by the corporation, and have and will again sell the American people out at any cost to keep their status-quo. Scary and dangerous times indeed. Then we always have to watch for what they are slipping into another bill, another tactic of their's. Iím a little confused on which one is right also and this is by design, one thing for sure we are the last armed nation and this is why they fear us and have not completely taken this country down "YET". This is what the second ammendment is all about and they have to eliminate it, it's their plan.
As President George H. W. Bush said, on national Television - 9/11/1991..."We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, ....."

Brian said:
The CONSTITUTION does not need to change for bans to take effect, all there needs to be is a declaration of MARSHAL LAW. All of the the CONSTITUTION is effectively put on hold at that point. Its been done before in history. THATS IT, ITS DONE ! ! ! ! Educate me if I am incorrect.

/////////////////////////

Everyone is militia! (revised ending)

Push and push and push...America, our citizens are armed and they love to shoot!

/////////////////////////

David Icke-Message for the uniforms and dark suits

Question to police(British,American,Canadian and Australian in particular).How many of you, had a grandfather,who laid down his life in battle to protect his family and ordinary good people,from people like YOU ???

////////////////////////////

Federal Reserve Debt Monetization Explained

////////////////////////////

Cheonan sunk by mine, not North Korea?

Russian investigators conducted their own investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan from May 31 to June 7. The investigation concluded that the vessel was sunk by an "indirect outside underwater explosion" and that the blast was more likely from a mine floating below the surface than a torpedo.

////////////////////////

*What to Say when Someone Dies*

*Giving Condolences in a Tasteful Manner *

(Good advice from Paul)

*It's not easy to find the words to say when someone you know loses a loved one. Here are some tips for making the conversation easier and much more meaningful.*

When someone you know has lost a loved one, itís very difficult to know what to say. You can stammer and stumble around with the best of intentions. Others will avoid the person altogether because of loss of words. There are a few encouraging things to say to help someone understand that you are truly sorry for the loss being experienced, and words you should probably try very hard to avoid.

*Encouraging Words of Condolence*

The loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult times in our lives. Hopefully, we turn to our families and friends during this time for support and sympathy. If you want to offer your sympathy, don't be afraid to do so. Even if you don't know the person very well, a few words can mean a lot.

*"I'm sorry for your loss"* is one of the most commonly used phrases. It conveys your feelings, without being overly sentimental. Many people find this is the easiest thing to say to someone who is dealing with the loss of a loved one. Simple put, you are offering your sympathy while acknowledging the grief that he is feeling.

*"Is there anything you need?"* is a sentiment that is greatly appreciated by people. While an individual may not need anything from you, it truly is the thought that counts. Be prepared, however, because he may actually need your help, and you may have to give it. Don't say this without a sincere intention to act.

Saying, *"What can I do,"* is similar to the question above, but it conveys your willingness to offer support in any capacity. Many people find that just knowing someone is available will offer support and understanding. And, if you are asked to do something as small as clean up after the reception, how good will you feel knowing you helped someone that needed it the most?

*"If you need to talk, call me"* is an open door invitation to allow someone to unload the feelings off on you. Be sure you are able to listen, if he calls or stops by. Many times a grieving person will not be able to talk about the pain for several days or even weeks. It's nice for him to know you are available when the time comes. This should be offered to people you feel close to, such as family, friends, or coworkers to make this conversation flow and not feel awkward.

*Words to Avoid in Times of Sympathy*

The one thing not to say is *"I know how you feel."* People do not want to hear this. This person is dealing with a loss in the only way he can, and you truly will not know what he feels. He may be going through the most difficult period in his life, or it may not be affecting him as mainstream society thinks it should. People will cope in different ways, but that does not necessarily mean it's wrong.

Another phrase to avoid saying is *"She is in a better place."* No matter what type of life the deceased person had before her passing, it is still the living that must continue on. It may make a person feel uncomfortable to ponder where the loved one has laid to rest. This statement, while maybe very sincere, can provide uneasiness more than anything. While there are no set rules for what to say to someone who has lost a loved one, common courtesy should prevail. People just want some form of comfort, and that doesn't have to be done verbally. A hug or squeeze of the hand can say what words sometimes can't. *Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal.*

/////////////////////////////

Genetically Modified Plants on the Loose and Spreading, Scientists Report

By John R. Quain
August 06, 2010
FoxNews.

(From Brian, news contributor)

Stuttons

The world's first red-fleshed apple, the Redlove, has rosy-red flesh with a beautiful pattern running through it, thanks to genetic modification.

Like Frankenstein shambling over the countryside, genetically altered plants have escaped from the labs.

It has long been a fear in Europe that companies would not be able to prevent the spread of genetically modified crops, foods altered to enhance nutrition, grow larger, or last longer on store shelves. Consumer groups and scientists have warned that once such organisms get into the wild, they could present a danger not only to the ecological balance of nature but also to humans and animals who eat them.

Their fears may have been realized. 

In a scene reminiscent of Jurassic Park, man-made, genetically modified (GM) plants have made their first large scale escape from the labs and been discovered growing wild in the U.S., scientists reported Friday. Can those Frankenfoods be far behind?

In field research conducted in North Dakota, the scientists found that genetically modified canola was spreading in the countryside and mingling with existing strains, creating "transgenic" strains of canola. The researchers said that the unintentional release of such GM plants could have serious implications. 

"These observations have important implications for the ecology and management of native and weedy species, as well as for the management of biotech products in the U.S.," said one of the study's coauthors, Cynthia Sagers from the University of Arkansas.

The genetically modified traits imparted to the canola plants, for example, make them resistant to certain herbicides, which makes them hardier. But if such a characteristic were genetically passed on to another plant, an invasive weed for example, the results could be disastrous. It could make a destructive and invasive plant difficult to eradicate and help it spread out of control.

So how worried should you be?

Sager and her colleagues' discovery isn't the first instance of GMs escaping into the wild. Canada and Japan have already reported such jailbreaks, according to the Ecological Society of America. It is unknown what the effects will be on food -- if any -- although some people have reported allergic reactions to genetically modified plants.

Indeed, in other parts of the world genetically engineered byproducts -- so-called Frankenfoods -- have already unintentionally made it onto grocery store shelves.

In the U.K, the country's Food Standards Agency revealed recently that beef from the offspring of a cloned cow was sold to consumers last year. That beef was eaten by consumers. Furthermore, the FSA said that it has uncovered yet another case of cloned beef being sold to the public. It is also now investigating the possibility that milk from cloned animals was sold to families in Britain.

There was no identifying or warning label on any of these foods, said the FSA, and the agency says such foods are illegal because they must be first approved and tested for safety as "novel foods." 

The European Parliament has voted for a ban on foods derived from clones and their offspring as well, but it has not become the law of the land there yet.

These recent developments have alarmed consumer advocates given how rapidly GMOs are spreading before they can be adequately tested and their effects on humans studied. It was just 14 years ago when the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, Dolly the sheep, was created.

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

Click Here To Comment

Home