Just so you know: All four Democrat candidates believe in the violation of federal law when it serves their "world without borders" agenda. All four are working for the end of the US Constitution as we know it, believe it or not.

<<<  If her trust factor is not at 51% before the election,  odds makers say she will not win the election.  


Editor's notes:  Understand that a national proponent of  "a world without borders,"  is a national leader who believes that the world will,  someday,  be governed by an international court/council that is sovereign to and above,  any national declaration of independence.  Europe is already "borderless"  but with problems in making that reality work in a meaningful way.  Germans still want to be Germans,  for example.  More importantly,  Germans don't want to be Greeks.   The modern day American Progressive has spent the past 40 years (since and including Jimmy Carter), working to bring the United States of America into the One World court.  Progressive theory includes the notion that UN treatise supersede national law.  

Case in point:  Hillary has worked in the past but since Obama,  to establish boundaries limiting private gun ownership via UN treatise.  She believes that such a treatise vacates the Constitution with its 2nd Amendment,  and BAM, no more guns - eventually - for private citizens (See the Forbes excerpt below the fold)


Daily Caller:   All four of the Democratic candidates for president have expressed support for sanctuary cities, a controversial policy that is being blamed for the recent release of a five times-deported illegal alien who allegedly murdered a woman in broad daylight in San Francisco.
As a senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, twice made public statements backing sanctuary cities. In 2008, she and two other Democratic candidates, Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Virginia U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, voted against an amendment that would block federal funds from going to sanctuary cities. And last year, as governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley announced that the Baltimore city jail would stop honoring requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold illegal aliens until they could be deported.

_______________________
The Fold: 


(Forbes - 6/2011)    It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans‘ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

Finish reading the article,  here:   http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/