In my last article, Agenda 21 Simplified, I undertook to clarify the attempts of the U.N. and the global elite to eradicate private property rights in the U.S. They argue that private property is the root cause of poverty and in order to ensure equality, governments should control the land and tax it. This is, in their opinion, the only way to ensure everyone has a fair share.

Agenda 21 is also being pushed as the only logical solution to "global warming," as the global elite would have you believe that mankind, in its mere one million years of existence, is causing more damage to the planet than mother nature has been able to conjure up in Earth's six billion-year history.

Of course, trying to prove a vast communist conspiracy is difficult. After all, the U.N. isn't going to come out and admit they are seeking world communism, are they? For all the doubters, along with the people who seek to discredit the speculations conservatives make, the answer to that question is yes, and it all revolves around the issue of global warming.

The U.N. climate Chief, Christiana Figueres publicly stated that world communism is the best way to combat global warming. I would also like to remind of readers of a little quote made by the former leader of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev-

 "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."

Further, I will point to one more thing in an effort to get the doubters to open their eyes, and this is from the listed forty-five goals of the communist party, which I might add were entered into the Congressional Record  in 1963.

Goal number 11 states that the U.N. should be promoted as the only hope for mankind and that if its charter is rewritten, it should be set up as the world's governing body with its own, independent armed forces. I'm sorry if I give the impression that I believe we are actually witnessing this right before our very eyes, but at least I am not asleep at the wheel. I see it as it being better to have a gun and not need one than to need one and not have one. If I am wrong about these conclusions, that will be wonderful; however, I don't think I am.

With all of this being said, I can now move onto my intended topic for this article, gun control. I claimed in my last article that the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements document that I clearly linked to, called for total and complete disarmament of all nations in order to achieve their objectives. I was challenged on this so I am going to be very specific here, like I am talking to a kindergartner. I hope that doesn't offend you.

In Section II, entitled "General Principles," is line number twelve, which clearly states…

All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the filed of nuclear disarmament… 

Can anyone say Small Arms Trade Treaty?  You can read a list of its provisions by reading my article about the treaty here.

Before anyone goes off and accuses me of being a tin-foil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-nut, I am going to tie this into the global communism theory by referring to the forty-five communist goals again. Goal number three-

"Develop the illusion that complete disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength."

To build a solid case around this stated communist goal, let's look to  PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act State Department Publication No. 7277.

This document  essentially details the globalist plan for a total and complete disarmament of the United States. Public Law 87-297 was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. This law established the groundwork for the dismantling of our military. I'm sorry if you have not realized that our armed forces have systematically been reduced in size by every administration since that time, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, for truths sake! The efforts to disarm the civilian population would commence immediately after the eradication of our military. I would imagine that they view the military as a bigger threat than armed civilians. I would like to stress that I only come to these conclusions because that is what the documents say.

Finally, I said I was going to tie all of this into Agenda 21, and it isn't that hard to do by describing various situations we have recently witnessed and understanding the true goals of the U.N. For instance, the mass  migration we have witnessed recently is part of Agenda 21 because, allegedly, the biggest culprit of "global climate" change is the United States, and one of the goals of the communist party is the overthrow of all colonial governments in order to make self-governance of indigenous populations possible.

Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

Remember, there are many groups out there, like La Raza, that believe the United States unjustifiably stole the land in the southwest. Therefore, this mass migration, according to the U.N. goal, is to return the land to its supposed "indigenous peoples" and overthrow the evil colonial government of the U.S. In order to accomplish this, the American people must be disarmed and any situation that will empower the United Nations to intercede and assume authority will be used. After all, one of the stated objectives of the small arms treaty is-

To implement effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, particularly in post-conflict situations, including peace agreements and peacekeeping operations.

If you haven't noticed there have been a lot of what appear to be fabricated attempts to start unnecessary conflicts in the United States, some of which the U.N. is using to insert itself. The type of racial violence that comes on the heels of a situation like the one in Ferguson is just what is needed for the U.N. to get boots on the ground and act as "peace keepers" in our country.

Perhaps I am wrong, in which case I would be relieved, but I think it's foolish to not take all of the available evidence into consideration. There are many elements of this that are discussed in the articles we publish here at For Truth's Sake! It isn't my fault if people decide to ignore the obvious and believe that elected politicians actually care about you.

*Part two of a three-part series. Read Part One

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.