Alan Keyes somehow managed to include a rant against gay rights in a screed against the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which is already the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories. Keyes said that the treaty is—of course—a push to stifle the gun rights, classify “people who support the Second Amendment” as “prospective terrorists” and provide “a pretext for suppressing the constitutional rights of people.”
“Can they figure out a way to reconcile their desire to give arms to Islamic extremists with their equally intense desire to disarm law-abiding American citizens?” Keyes asked. “The problem is that these days, what constitutes human rights abuses, terrorism, and violations of humanitarian law is very much in the eye of the propagandist.”
This all goes back to homosexuality and abortion, you see, because that’s where the Obama administration and the judiciary’s supposed crackdown on liberty began: “These days, elitist faction judges cite human rights violations as they rape the parental authority of Christian parents who seek to raise their children to believe that homosexuality is wrong and sinful behavior. Pro-abortion officials are well-known for their attempts to prosecute pro-life demonstrators as criminals under provisions of law created to target organized crime.”
This evident contradiction between its intended treaty commitments and its actions may keep the Obama faction from pre-empting U.S. Senate action on the UN Arms Trade Treaty. Can they figure out a way to reconcile their desire to give arms to Islamic extremists with their equally intense desire to disarm law-abiding American citizens? However that may be, Kerry signed the treaty while voicing the obligatory assurances that this will in no way affect the constitutional rights of people subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
The problem is that these days, what constitutes human rights abuses, terrorism, and violations of humanitarian law is very much in the eye of the propagandist. These days, elitist faction judges cite human rights violations as they rape the parental authority of Christian parents who seek to raise their children to believe that homosexuality is wrong and sinful behavior. Pro-abortion officials are well-known for their attempts to prosecute pro-life demonstrators as criminals under provisions of law created to target organized crime. People who support the Second Amendment, believe in limited government, and champion the sovereign authority the 10th Amendment reserves "to the States respectively, or to the people," have been identified in Obama faction official documents as prospective terrorists.
On the face of it, these claims and legal abuses are absurd. But they are matters of record. So, is it absurd to suggest that the people they target and abuse might, by law, be restricted in their access to firearms in order to satisfy the provisions of the proposed UN treaty? Obama faction officials and members of the U.S. judiciary (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have shown little regard for constitutional reason even when nothing in the Constitution gave them warrant for their decisions and actions. When the provisions of a treaty, ratified to command respect as the Supreme Law of the Land, give them a pretext for their unreason, what should we expect from them?
Of course, the language that gives treaties the sanction of the Supreme Law of the Land need not be construed to make them a pretext for suppressing the constitutional rights of people subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Just as provisions of duly enacted U.S. laws that contradict the Constitution are judged to be null and void, so treaty provisions that do so ought to be judged. But the Obama faction and its collaborators are determined to shed the constraints of constitutional government, especially when it comes to the responsibility of the people to maintain among themselves a well-regulated militia, as necessary for the security of their freedom.
