Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Øbama

Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency.


President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution by seating himself at the head of United Nations' Security Council, thus becoming the first US president to chair the world body.

A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet.

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.
 
On Wednesday  (May 19) Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States


On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd
Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.


Obama can appear before the public and tell us that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This has happened in other countries, past and present!


As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

 Read the Article

U.S. Reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better

Global WARMING?????

Global temperatures 'to decrease'

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.

Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
Rises 'stalled'

LA NINA KEY FACTS

La Nina translates from the Spanish as "The Child Girl"

Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific

Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific mean the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased

Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

China suffered from heavy snow in January

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
]Published: 2008/04/04 00:42:26 GMT
© BBC MMVIII

Global Warming anyone?

March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

A complete analysis is available online.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html


Climate panel on the hot seat

By H. Sterling Burnett -

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed. In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming. However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted. Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick. These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported." The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect. Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics. In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions. A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval. Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles. The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines. The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Its About Freedom Not Climatology

by Floy Lilley

When Vaclav Klaus, who has just won reelection as President of the Czech Republic, states that he has comparative advantage over other speakers on the issue of Climate Change, he is trenchantly correct. Klaus lived under the last large central planning scheme – communism. He rejects the offer to live under the even more draconian central plan of our time – climate alarmism and environmentalism.

Klaus explained his déjà vu vantage point to over five hundred participants at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change assembled at Times Square New York City on March 2–4. Stressing his personally acquired wisdom, Klaus said, "Future dangers will not come from the same source [communism]. The ideology will be different. Its essence [environmentalism and climate alarmism] will, nevertheless, be identical – the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea a reality."

"What I see in Europe and the U.S.," Klaus cautioned, "is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of a cynical approach of those who are themselves sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project."
Klaus focused on facts that showed that decreases in CO2 emissions in the EU have come about because manufacturing radically disappeared when the communist economy collapsed. Future decreases appear to rely on miracles or the deliberate pushing of the EU countries back into the Dark Ages. Carbon dioxide decreases are not normal for growing and prospering civilizations, given current technology. Most of those assembled would not consider such decreases to be either needed or desirable.

Klaus brought to our attention that the thinking of the climate alarmist is the same as Hayek’s portrayal of central planners in The Fatal Conceit. He boldly challenged the large assembly, "We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. [Freedom] should be the main message of our conference."
The aim and objective of this stimulating gathering was to collapse the fake "consensus" on human-induced catastrophic global warming. Achieving this is a necessary step toward turning climate alarmism into climate realism. The step was taken. "Consensus" collapsed. Over one hundred scientists were provided proof of the absence of "consensus" that has been touted by alarmists.

These scientists presented, exchanged and debated research showing global warming to be mostly natural, definitely moderate and realistically unstoppable. They held no consensus in their approaches or their results. Enter the dawn of climate realism.

The New York Times on Tuesday, March 4, ran an article by Andrew C. Revkin titled "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming." Written as a criticism, Revkin wrote that "the group…displayed a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate." That was the very point of the conference.

No "consensus" can be touted when, in fact, so many scientists do indeed dispute what data are meaningful and causative of the highly complex dynamics of climate change. Several, like Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist, displayed data showing the sun to be the more likely driver of temperature variations, as compared to carbon dioxide radiative forcings.

Howard Hayden, physics professor, concluded that astronomical phenomena cause about seventy-five percent of the fluctuations in Earth’s temperature. The combined effects of all greenhouse gases, changes in surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about three degrees Celsius of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials. Hayden provided a repeatable sound bite when asked about computer models that are the basis for alarmist views. He simply said, "Garbage in; gospel out."

Dr. William M. Gray, meteorological researcher for more than forty years, contributed that the deep oceans, not carbon dioxide, are driving climate. Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent up-tick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Dr. Vincent Gray, knows water vapor to be the principal greenhouse gas as others do. However, Gray emphasizes that climate models fail to reflect the fact that water vapor is extremely variable. Gray’s work finds that the global warming claim fails on two fundamental facts: 1.) No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made. 2.) The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected." Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. Gray’s call for such a review ends with these harsh words, "The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly realize that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization and the thinking behind it is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens."

Dr Roy Spencer, NASA senior scientist, produced recent evidence for reduced climate sensitivity. Background "noise" in climate systems creates temperature variations that are not random. This "noise" exceeds all of the warming that has been thought to have been made by humans. Climate models don’t handle clouds and convection in the tropics well. Precipitation systems interactively regulate the climate system. Computer models predicting climate change are necessarily flawed. Spencer releases his new book March 27, 2008: Climate Confusion – How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.

Dr. Robert Balling, professor of climatology, questioned what the increase in global temperature does and does not tell us. Water vapor and non-solar control seem dominant. The theory, measurements, and understanding of the greenhouse effect are advancing rapidly, and drastically changing the original predictions from only a few decades ago. Measured warming has been nowhere near the earlier predictions, and the mathematical models are being constantly revised. Both Balling and Dr. Ross McKitrick highlighted failings in data collection. Many temperature stations have been discontinued. Technology for recording temperatures has changed. Urban heat-island effects continue. Data adjustments made by alarmists appear biased.

Dennis T. Avery, and co-author S. Fred Singer, wrote Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years They presented their findings and stressed, "Most of our modern warming occurred before 1940, before much human-emitted CO2. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degree C – with no warming at all in the last nine years. The Greenhouse Theory can’t explain these realities, but the 1,500-year cycle does." The cycle is solar induced. Ice cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth’s climate.

So, no consensuses surfaced. None need exist when the subjects are scientific. Hypotheses and theories should continue to be tested. By different skeptical approaches each scientist at this gathering proved he was courageous. Why courageous? Because, to be a climate change skeptic is political-funding suicide. Few feel they can step forward before they retire. Many, even when gathered together and taking courage from the presence of so many others, felt they had to step away from being in group pictures. Those are choices. They are respected.

Debunking the false "consensus" position of climate alarmists didn’t end with the mere conclusion of the conference. Several synchronous efforts include: A Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. It was endorsed by scientists and researchers. The document stated clearly that "Global warming" is not a global crisis. This tangible product with many signatories declared among other points: That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate; the furtherance of the nascent International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) publication of a current and future Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report (NIPCC) a new journal on climate science; making video presentations from the conference online; making audio CDs of either a session or the complete conference available; enlistment of interested parties into a speakers bureau; and a 2009 London conference being planned.

This agenda is aggressive, necessary, and appreciated. Hopefully there will be many others who step up, especially in response to Vaclav Klaus’ plea that we recognize that the issue has never been global climate cooling or global climate warming. It has always and ever been about political power and control of earth’s population.

For over seventeen years I have witnessed at United Nations international gatherings so much ego, money and meeting time being poured into this global central plan to ration energy – to control carbon dioxide by controlling people. To control people by controlling carbon dioxide. To brand the stuff of life – carbon – a deadly pollutant. Political, activist and business careers, especially legal careers, now depend upon creating this new bureaucratic global layer of rules and regulations. The new-age rulers want the wealth and power that will accrue to them as they impose their centralized, consummate plans upon us.

The Czech Republic’s President stands firm, honoring the lives and liberties of his citizenry against this particular brand of fresh oppression. Would that these United States had such a courageous leader.

March 11, 2008

Floy Lilley [send her mail] is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly with the University of Texas at Austin's Chair of Free Enterprise, and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

The Human Right of Self-Defense

David B. Kopel,1
Paul Gallant 2
& Joanne D. Eisen 3

I. INTRODUCTION

"Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense."4

Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws?

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms. The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.


1. Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., http://www.davekopel.org . Author of The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992). Coauthor of Gun Control and Gun Rights (2002). French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of national constitutions and of English decisions written in Law French are by Kopel.


2. Senior Fellow, Independence Institute, Golden Colorado. http://www.independenceinstitute.org


3. Senior Fellow, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado. Coauthor (with Kopel and Gallant) of numerous articles on international gun policy in publications such as the Notre Dame Law Review, Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, Texas Review of Law and Politics, Engage, UMKC Law Review, and Brown Journal of World Affairs.


4. In re Hirota and Others, 15 ANN. DIG. & REP. OF PUB. INT’L L. CASES 356, 364 (Int’l Mil.. Trib. for the Far East, 1948) (no. 118, Tokyo trial) (also stating that under the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a state is the initial judge of the necessity of self-defense against an impending attack, but not the final judge); see also YORAM DINSTEIN, WAR, AGGRESSION, AND SELF-DEFENSE 181 (2d ed. 1994) ("This postulate [from Hirota] may have always been true in regard to domestic law, and it is currently accurate also in respect of international law . . . . [T]he right of self-defence will never be abolished in the relations between flesh-and-blood human beings . . . . ")


Full article is published in the BYU LAW JOURNAL at:
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf

We`re from the government, and we`re here to help you.

by DAVID B. KOPEL, PAUL GALLANT & JOANNE D. EISEN

While the United Nations works diligently to curb the Second Amendment rights of Americans, it is turning a blind eye to abused Karamojong tribesmen fighting a brutal government to keep their only means of self-defense.

International gun prohibition groups are working hard and successfully to push an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) through the United Nations. They claim that the reason the treaty is needed is that arms are often used to violate human rights.

True enough. One need only look at Burma, where the military dictatorship has been torturing and killing Buddhist monks and other pro-rights activists. Burma, by the way, has a strict gun control law dating back to 1951: The president can ban any gun by fiat, and any person possessing a banned gun is presumed guilty of high treason and must prove his innocence.
One thing that the media doesn`t tell you about the Arms Trade Treaty is that an important goal of its proponents is an international legal ban on the sale of arms, including components for making guns, to Israel. Control Arms is a gun control lobby jointly created by the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Amnesty International and Oxfam. In November 2006, Control Arms issued "Arms Without Borders," a document setting forth the case for the Arms Trade Treaty, and describing Israel as one the countries that the ATT would target.
Nor does the media point out that another target of the ATT is the United States, since our gun and self-defense laws are-according to the UN Human Rights Commission-violations of international human rights. American crime victims and police officers can use firearms to defend against non-lethal attacks, such as attacks by rapists, armed robbers or home arsonists. Yet according to the UN, allowing a woman to save herself from rape by shooting the rapist is a human rights violation.

But the most glaring omission in the discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty as a human rights tool is the complete silence about how gun control has so often been used to violate human rights. Consider, for example, what`s going on right now in Uganda.

The borderlands of northeastern Uganda, northwestern Kenya, southeastern Sudan and southwestern Ethiopia are occupied by the tribes of the pastoral Karamojong people. Cattle herds are the center of their culture, and provide the major source of dietary protein from milk, blood and meat. Wealth and local political power are based on the size of one`s cattle herd. For countless generations, cattle rustling has been a traditional Karamojong pursuit.

The UN and its disarmament cronies have recently claimed that the availability of modern arms has made cattle raiding deadlier and that civilian gun ownership is the root cause of the area`s problems. Not so, replies Ben Knighton, who is dean of the research program at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, and author of the book The Vitality of Karamojong Religion: Dying Tradition or Living Faith? Knighton argues that the Ugandan army`s gun confiscation program is itself the major cause of violence.

Even Kilfemarian Gebre-Wold, former director of a voluntary gun surrender program sponsored by Germany`s Bonn International Center for Conversion, forthrightly acknowledges that "though many pastoralist households have small arms, the rate of crime and violent incidents is not high in their community ... the density of weapons does not mean automatically the rise of gun-related violence."

Unfortunately, these humanitarians do not make policy. Milton Obote, Uganda`s first prime minister, imposed a nationwide ban on the civilian possession of firearms in 1969. General Idi Amin later overthrew Obote, and, thanks to Obote`s previous gun control work, was able to perpetrate genocide, killing hundreds of thousands of Ugandans, especially in Karamoja. The Karamojong tried to fight back using steel tubing from furniture to fabricate crude firearms.
the Karamojong had learned that cows and guns are equally indispensable-a gun needs to be readily accessible in order to protect one`s herd. Obote retaliated by using his army and secret police to brutalize the tribes.

The Tanzanian army invaded Uganda and overthrew Amin in 1979. While Amin`s army was collapsing in the face of the Tanzanian invasion and the subsequent chaos, the Karamojong found easy access to deserted government armories filled with modern weapons.

Julius Nyerere, the dictator of Tanzania, restored Obote as dictator of Uganda. Obote quickly resumed his attempts to disarm the Karamojong. His efforts were often forcefully repelled, because the Karamojong had learned that cows and guns are equally indispensable-a gun needs to be readily accessible in order to protect one`s herd. Obote retaliated by using his army and secret police to brutalize the tribes.

In 1984, the Ugandan and Kenyan armies collaborated in Operation Nyundo ("Hammer") to eliminate armed herders seeking cross-border safety. Lepokoy Kolimuk, a village elder in Kanyarkwat village, Kenya, said the soldiers were "wild beyond humanity." The number of human deaths remains unknown. Twenty thousand cattle were rounded up and starved to death. Nevertheless, Operation Nyundo failed to disarm the Karamojong.

In 1986, strongman Yoweri Museveni toppled Obote and continued the violent firearms confiscation. The army, with the wildly inaccurate title of Uganda People`s Defence Forces (UPDF) abused civilians by looting supplies and raping women. The UPDF`s actions confirmed to the Karamojong that their only protection from government predators with guns was keeping defensive guns themselves. The resistance was so great that Museveni temporarily abandoned his disarmament efforts in 1989.

Yet prompted by the UN, Museveni got back into the gun control business in 2001, with a voluntary gun surrender program. The program expired on Feb. 15, 2002, and only 7,676 guns (out of a conservatively estimated 40,000 in Karamojong hands) were collected.

In order to confiscate the rest of the firearms, the army re-commenced what the international gun-ban lobbies euphemistically call "forcible disarmament." Rape, torture and the destruction of homes after systematic army looting became commonplace.

Father Declan O`Toole, a member of the Mill Hill Missionaries, asked the army to be "less aggressive." Just a few days later, on March 21, 2002, he was murdered by UPDF soldiers. The murderers were apprehended and executed before they could reveal who had given them the order to kill Father O`Toole. Uganda President Museveni blamed the Karamojong, claiming, "The best way to stop such incidents in [the] future is for the Karamojong to hand in their guns to eliminate any justification for the UPDF operations in the villages."

In the northern district of Kotido, the Ugandan army engaged armed civilians and captured about 30 rifles on May 16. Thirteen civilians and two soldiers died-one person dead for every two guns confiscated. Thousands of residents were displaced because their homes were torched by UPDF troops.

By mid-July of 2002, the total number of guns recovered by the government, from both the voluntary and forced gun surrender programs, had reached nearly 10,000, leaving tens of thousands of guns still in Karamojong hands.

Museveni had promised to increase security for people who gave up their guns, but that promise proved empty. The disarmament only created a new group of victims, who were preyed upon by those who still had firearms. There were many instances of violence against the disarmed, by both civilians and soldiers. After homes were bombed and crops were destroyed, thousands of tribespeople fled across the border to Kenya. About 80,000 more people were internally displaced.

Despite all the suffering inflicted on the Karamojong, the disarmament program failed. In 2002, the pro-government Ugandan newspaper New Vision acknowledged that the Karamojong were now "purchasing more guns to replenish those either voluntarily handed [over] or forcefully recovered by the government."

Another Kenya-Uganda military assault on Karamoja`s gun-owning villages was launched in 2005, but in 2006, Col. Phenehas Katirima, chief of personnel and administration in the UPDF, admitted, "Brand new guns from western Europe, across the Mediterranean and the Middle East have been seen in Karamoja."

Because of the human rights atrocities, the United Nations Development Programme temporarily suspended its funding of the Ugandan development and voluntary disarmament programs. (The UN had never funded the military program, except to the extent that money is fungible, and foreign aid is often diverted by corrupt governments.)

Still, the Ugandan army`s campaign persisted. On Oct. 29, 2006, the UPDF attempted to disarm the village of Lopuyo, but was repulsed after an 8-hour battle with armed Karamojong. Army spokesman Major Felix Kulaije stated that, in the course of retrieving firearms, "we went there peacefully in a cordon and search operation." However, the villagers told a more harrowing story. The army surrounded the village and began to question and torture young men. Still, few guns were recovered, and the tribesmen began to attack the UPDF.

The UPDF then launched retaliatory raids on the Karamojong using a helicopter gunship, but found that they no longer had complete control of the airspace. Some of the new weapons the Karamojong had acquired were capable of hitting aircraft.

On Nov. 10, 2006, the UN news agency Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) reported that the village of Kadokini was targeted. "UPDF tanks then drove through the village crushing and damaging properties, including huts and granaries." The result was three deaths, seven acts of torture and five guns confiscated by the army. Many similar attacks have also been reported by the UN and local newspapers.

the UPDF continues to engage in acts which ultimately result in human rights violations, including killings, injuries, torture, damages and destruction of property and livelihoods.
Yet the UN-which seems to be more in favor of gun control schemes than opposed to gross human rights violations-has not demanded that Museveni reign in his troops. Instead, according to the UN`s acting humanitarian coordinator in Uganda, Theophane Nikyema: "The United Nations ... appeals to Karamojong communities to refrain from violent responses to law and order efforts." With alliances forming among the tribes in order to defeat their common enemy-their government-it does not appear that they are willing to disarm, but are instead preparing for further violent resistance.

The UN`s news service did admit on May 30, 2007, that, "Intermittent efforts to disarm, sometimes forcibly, up to 20 million pastoralists in the Horn of Africa, who are believed to possess 5 million firearms, have failed ... and forcible disarmament has not worked."
It`s doubtful that a single Karamojong man or woman has ever heard of former NRA President Charlton Heston. Yet the Karamojong people plainly share his sentiment: "From my cold, dead hands."

In the meantime, the Ugandan government continues its own efforts to increase the number of cold, dead hands among the Karamojong. Ugandan Gen. Aronda Nyakairima states that the UPDF is ready to use "any available means" to get civilian guns. According to a report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "The UPDF continues to engage in acts which ultimately result in human rights violations, including killings, injuries, torture, damages and destruction of property and livelihoods." The UPDF attacks take place not only in Uganda, but also in Karamojong regions of Kenya.

The UN personnel who have reported on the human rights abuses in Uganda`s gun control campaign deserve respect. It is unfortunate that Control Arms, Amnesty International, Oxfam and IANSA have said nothing about the Ugandan army`s gun control depredations against the Karamojong. It`s not as if they`re unaware of the problem; we hand-delivered our previous report on the problem to them in July 2007 at the UN gun control conference. It was during the same conference that the UN cut off funding for Uganda-an act that was not exactly kept secret from the people at the conference.

If the true purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty is really to protect human rights-rather than to set the stage for arms embargos on the U.S. and Israel-the treaty will need to address the problem of arms possessed by armies like the UPDF and the human rights atrocities they perpetrate in the name of gun control.

This article is based on "Human Rights and Gun Confiscation," which will appear in the Quinnipiac Law Review in early 2008, and is available at http://www.davekopel.org/ .

Posted: 12/20/2007 12:00:00 AM

Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=267
window.print();

A Message From The President

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.

Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.


Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER THAT MONEY WILL GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM - - SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world hellholes and then watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France!

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth!

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicle s will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York!

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really needs an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be developing alternative energies to free ourselves from oil dependency and do our part for global warming.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'darn tootin.'

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to eliminate homelessness in America To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America Thank you and good night.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.