Thread: U.N.'s global gun ban treaty

John Kerry pretty pumped about signing off on UN arms trade treaty;
White House oddly fine with waiting it out
posted at 8:01 pm on June 3, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The Senate has already come out swinging — on a bipartisan basis, no less — with a symbolic 53-46 vote against the United States’ adoption of the United Nations’ newly finalized Arms Trade Treaty, an international agreement that its globalist advocates claim will be helpful in regulating the conventional arms trade. The Obama administration went pretty mum about the ongoing issue in the run-up to the presidential election, but has since declared their full and enthusiastic support for the project that a group of 130 lawmakers last week called a “deeply flawed” document that “suffers from vagueness” and which they recommend the administration should abstain from signing.

Still, Secretary of State John Kerry is pretty darn excited about the prospect of the United States hopping on board with the United Nations’ treaty:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” he said. Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

And yet, it sounds like the White House might suddenly be feeling sheepish about the issue all over again. They’re once more pulling out the stall tactics, waiting to sign a bill that President Obama fundamentally supports but most of the Senate fundamentally opposes until both Congress and much of the country are on vacation in August (a.k.a. the time when Congress and the media will raise the least amount of collective fuss over the whole thing) — except that the president could have signed it today if he had really wanted to.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president aims to sign the pact “before the end of August.” Obama could have signed the treaty as early as Monday. …

That time frame appears to validate the concerns of treaty advocates who had worried the administration would wait until the cover of darkness to sign a treaty opposed by a majority of senators. …

The treaty covers small arms and calls for the creation of an end-user registry for exports. It is that registry that has drawn the opposition of the NRA and a majority of the Senate. …

Carney made it clear Monday that Obama intends to sign it eventually, arguing that technical reasons explain the delay. “We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” he said. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

“Remaining translation issues”? Mm hmm, yes, I’m sure that’s it.

Anyhow, if/when President Obama finally signs the treaty, the teeth of enforcement only come with Senate ratification of a two-thirds majority — which, as things stand now, is not going to happen.


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/0...e-with-waiting

UN ARMS TREATY:
Kerry Says US Will Sign Controversial Agreement
June 03, 2013 7:48 PM EDT

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

"As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty," the lawmakers wrote.

The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it -- as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.

What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented.

The United Nations has organized a high-level signing ceremony at U.N. headquarters on Monday -- a sign of the treaty's global importance -- and several dozen countries are expected to sign, the first step to ratification.

The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.

The coalition noted that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death."

Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.ht...565&pageNum=-1

Obama to Sign UN Gun Treaty During Summer Recess
by Ben Shapiro 3 Jun 2013, 7:05 PM PDT

In an attempt to avoid public scrutiny, President Obama plans to sign the controversial United Nations gun treaty in August, when Congress is in summer recess. http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affa...y-until-august According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, Obama will sign the treaty “before the end of August,” even though legally he could have done so next week.

The treaty is problematic for a variety of reasons ranging from the substantive to the procedural. On substance, the treaty is designed to regulate arms importers and exporters, which the United States already does. The treaty, however, does not properly regulate foreign countries, leaving the United States on the hook while leaving actual wrongdoers alone. Meanwhile, signatories are supposed to keep information on “end users” of arms imported into their country and to give that information to the supplying country. In other words, it makes it more difficult for American citizens to import arms, and guarantees the solid chance that foreign governments have information about domestic gunowners.

Procedurally, the United States originally insisted that the treaty go through consensus decision-making, meaning that everyone sign on. http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ce-and-process But when a conference to do so failed, the US decided that the treaty did not need to apply to all countries. Countries abstaining from the vote include China, Russia, India, and Egypt.

While the Obama administration openly supported the treaty when it was first proposed, it has changed its view since the failure of domestic gun control legislation. Now, it appears that the White House wants the benefit of being on the record with regard to the treaty, but does not want the fallout of a public battle over the treaty before the 2014 elections, especially given the fact that the treaty will not be ratified in the Senate.

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” Carney said of signing the treaty. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

While President Obama wants to delay the treaty for political reasons, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly wants it signed as soon as possible. “The United States welcomes the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty for signature and we look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...s-trade-treaty

John Kerry signs U.N. small arms treaty
Senators vow to stop ratification

Administration still trying to hand 2nd Amendment to the United Nations....

UPDATE: While we were posting this, Kerry signed the treaty. A variety of Senators, including Corker and Inhofe, are vowing to stop its ratification.


Fox News is claiming that an unnamed senior State Department official has confirmed longstanding rumors that, sometime today, John Kerry will sign the controversial United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The agreement will establish a system to monitor and regulate the international conventional arms trade, including small arms.

Since the treaty calls on participating nations to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list” for both weapons and components, pro-2nd Amendment activists have argued that it will lead to the creation of a national gun registry that will track the sale of firearms and ammunition. The treaty also urges governments to “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms,” meaning it could be used to control not just military weapons, but personal-use handguns, shotguns, and rifles as well.

Yesterday, Senator James Inhofe sent a letter to Kerry, informing him that he's wasting his time by "trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats.” Inhofe claims that the United Nations "should not be deceived into thinking the U.S. will ratify a treaty just because it has been signed by the President or someone in his Administration.”

Echoing those sentiments was Senator Bob Corker, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He sent a letter to President Obama warning that any attempt to enforce the treaty without the consent of Congress would be a grave mistake.

Dear President Obama,

It is my understanding that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States. The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be inconsistent with the United States Constitution, law, and practice.

As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.

Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate. The ATT is such a treaty. Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.

Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Corker
Ranking Member

None of this likely to matter much to President Obama, whose disdain for both the 2nd Amendment and Congressional authority is well documented. If the past is any sort of indication, Kerry will sign the treaty, and Obama will try to pretend it’s instantly a “done deal.”

Which, of course, it isn’t.

Ratification will require a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate – a bar the treaty will almost certainly fail to meet. Then, it would have to be ratified by 50 other member nations before it would go into effect. Despite bearing the signatures of 85 countries, so far, only 4 have been foolish enough to ratify it.

Hopefully, this nightmare will be DOA when it hits the Senate. Heading into an election year, one would assume that even the most paranoid anti-gun Dems would be smart enough to shun it. Still, it's worth noting just how desperately this administration is trying to usurp the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.caintv.com/john-kerry-to-sign-u.n.small-a

Gun Control – By Executive Order?

Posted on October 16 2013

In spite of all the attention on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling fight, gun control advocates are very much at work, trying to undermine our political process and the United States Constitution. Your Second Amendment rights have never been more at risk! Yet, somehow, it does not make the headlines of what is happening in Washington!

You must fax Washington and tell them to pay attention to what is happening, as the Obama administration tries to choke off our rights as United States’ citizens. Let me state bold and clearly: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is still the law of the land!

No matter what President Obama says.

Obama is the most anti-gun president the United States has ever had. In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder is the most anti-gun Attorney General the United States has ever had. They are working overtime to see that your gun rights are taken away!

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are hell-bent on making sure the United Nations Small Arms Treaty is signed and a part of the United States law.

If not, they will make it a part of our law via his Executive Order power! Did you read that? Yes, you read that correctly! Obama has proven he will act by Executive Order anytime he doesn’t get his way, 100%.

President Obama does NOT have enough United States Senators to back him to make the United Nations Treaty a law here in the United States!! But do you think that will stop him and his minion, Secretary of State John Kerry? Absolutely not! He will go ahead and sign it. Since Congress does not have enough votes to ratify the United Nations’ treaty, President Obama will make it an Executive Order!

And that, my friend, is an absolute travesty!

But that may only be a part of the anti-gun agenda that President Obama has up his sleeve! This requires ATTENTION NOW. Obama and Holder are moving forward on this behind the scenes because they are keeping us too busy to see what is going on behind our backs.

FAX Congress to let them know that you not only OPPOSE the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, but you oppose ANY anti-gun Executive Order that President Obama may thrust upon the American people!!

Please FAX every Member of Congress to notify them that they absolutely must vote against any gun control legislation that the President is pushing; be it the United Nations Small Arms Treaty or any anti-gun Executive Orders!

When the representative of a nation signs a treaty, that treaty becomes just as binding on that nation as a treaty signed by that nation’s president. The only difference in the validity of the treaty is that when a Secretary of State signs a treaty, that signature is valid only until the Senate ratifies or rejects the treaty.

ALERT! If the Senate does not reject the treaty with an up or down vote, it remains binding on that nation in perpetuity!

Most United States Senators supposedly reject the United Nations Small Arms Treaty—again, supposedly! TRUST NO ONE! Not one single person. Don’t expect that the GOP will be fighting for your rights because they are too busy fighting for their jobs!

However, we must let Congress know that the American people REJECT the U.N. Small Arms Treaty!! Will this stop our anti-gun president, Barack Obama? We must do all we can, while we can.

Gun control advocates continue their march across this country thanks to the “open doors” afforded them by President Obama, Gabby Giffords, the Connecticut parents, and many others.

But, because YOU are diligent . . . YOU are making your voice be heard—we are beginning to make the pro-gun voices be heard!

Grassroots groups, state-by-state, are standing up and saying NO MORE!

You must FAX every Member of Congress to notify them that they absolutely must vote against any gun control legislation that the President is pushing; be it the United Nations Small Arms Treaty or any anti-gun Executive Orders!

For instance:

IN COLORADO … Already two State Senators have been recalled by some every day guys that got together and took on Bloomberg and Hickenlooper money. The story is remarkable and brings so much hope to our cause!

Oh, you might say, “I don’t own a gun so why should this be a hill to die on now with so much going on in Congress?” “Well, I don’t write books either, but I expect everyone should still have the 1st amendment right to write one!” Well said. That was a loose quote from the gentlemen in Colorado that fought and FIRED a CONGRESSMEN in A RECALL!

The Colorado Basic Freedom Defense Fund headed by Keith Coniglio, Luke Wagner, and Nick Andrasik and the Recall John Morse campaign’s Victor Head from Pueblo Freedom & Rights and the Recall Angela Giron campaign, WON the recall.

GRASSROOTS WON!

It didn’t matter that multi-millions of dollars poured into Colorado to fight these “blue collar” guys that folks, of course, chuckled at in the beginning.

Isn’t it so refreshing that a “formerly” non-political man and his family can stand up and do the right thing – AND WIN against the wealthy and well connected.

Be active, get involved, or donate – but get involved and inspired by like-minded folks WINNING BACK THEIR RIGHTS!

We can do this in every state.

Another state senator in Colorado is already on the “hot seat” as Second Amendment advocates seek to oust the THIRD Colorado lawmaker. Pro-gun advocates want to RECALL Democratic State Senator Evie Hudak. She was criticized by gun rights advocates when she told a rape victim: “Statistics are not on your side.”

TWO Democratic state senators have already lost their seats in the historic September 10 RECALL election in Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado. Politically, a successful Hudak recall campaign, along with a Republican win, would hand the Republicans a single-vote majority in the Colorado State Senate!

Race by Race, State by State! We can do it. We must do it.

Colorado Republican Chairman states: “The Colorado GOP’s role is to elect Republican candidates to office…”

Don’t believe it; don’t trust the “GOP” because the GRAND OLD PARTY isn’t looking out for you.

The grassroots group in Colorado said the GOP actually worked against the grassroots effort!

Don’t listen to the media telling you the Republicans are losing because that isn’t true either.

The GOP is losing. We, The People … WE ARE WINNING!

The anti-Hudak committee has until December 3rd to collect approximately 18,300 valid signatures to create a special election! We wish them BEST OF LUCK because Colorado is the incubator for the rest of the country.

The left-leaning Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper wants no part of anti-gun control groups blanketing the state of Colorado NOW. He said their presence has “back-fired” in Colorado! The Governor told news media that it might be a good idea for Michael Bloomberg and his allies to stay out of Colorado!

GO HOME BLOOMBERG – Your money is not good here or ANYWHERE!

“Hick” stated: “Colorado is a state that people like to be themselves and solve their own problems. They don’t really like outside organizations meddling in their affairs.”

IN NEW YORK . . . According to the Watertown, New York DAILY TIMES: “The (New York) SAFE Act, which was enacted in January, immediately met with scathing criticism from north county residents and politicians who took issue both with the provisions of the new law, which they felt unfairly restricts their Second Amendment rights, and with the manner in which the law was passed, which they felt did not give lawmakers enough time to properly review and understand it.

“In March, the Jefferson County Board of Legislators unanimously passed a resolution opposing the act. It joined 51 other New York counties in doing so, according to nysaferesolutions.com. Upon passage of the resolution, the crowd that packed the second floor of the historic County Courthouse stood as one and applauded legislators.”

IN CALIFORNIA . . . Governor Jerry Brown signed a sweeping gun control bill that targets firearms, ammo and hunting. However, there is one SMALL snag in the legislation.

According to the New York Times, “Democrats in the California legislature passed a sweeping package of gun control bills after a string of mass shootings across the country, cracking down on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and lead ammunition. But, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed several key pieces, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons that many had considered the toughest restriction on gun ownership in the country.”

Governor Brown vetoed three of the four bills of the LIFE Act, which included the semiautomatic rifle ban.

THE BOTTOM LINE: YOUR FAXES ARE ACTUALLY WORKING!

State governors and state legislations are feeling the “heat” and the pressure of the people. In reality, the people are letting their voices be heard!

State by State – We can play their game. We can beat the Liberals using their own tactics!

Thank you for your participation. YOU are making a difference.

Join the conversation on Facebook!

We MUST give law-abiding citizens, around the world and here in the United States, the prospect to decide for themselves whether or not to defend themselves.

The president wants to take the guns away from patriotic Americans; which includes ILLEGALLY having Secretary of State John Kerry sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

Mr. President, a treaty requires TWO-THIRDS of the United States Senators; of which two-thirds are AGAINST the treaty. Please STOP the madness!

Tell the United States Congress Members that they must vote AGAINST every gun control measure before them!

Sincerely,

Joe Otto
Conservative Daily

http://www.conservative-daily.com/20...ecutive-order/

Last week, 50 U.S. Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama saying NOT to ratify the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty, that Secretary of State John Kerry illegally signed weeks ago. Note that 46 United States Senators did vote to give our Constitutional rights to the United Nations!

The bottom line: We were only FOUR (4) votes away from the United States Senate giving away our Constitutional rights to the United Nations! http://www.conservative-daily.com/20...ond-amendment/

President Barack Obama must understand, as a direct result of this letter and recent developments that the Second Amendment supersedes anything that President Obama puts forth, even via an Executive Order!

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton originally pledged that the United States would only enter the Arms Trade Treaty by “the rule of consensus decision-making.” The 50 U.S. Senators wrote President Barack Obama that “in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by the majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. We fear that this reversal has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.”

HALF of the United States Senators wrote that the UN Arms Trade Treaty “encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level, which would constitute the core of a national gun registry.” However, on March 25, 2013, his spokesman told the press that Obama was absolutely not working to create a national gun registry!

Yet, another Obama lie!!

The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:

"To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.

The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power!

EVEN if you do not like Alex Jones, I urge you to watch this video and share with your family and friends. Bill of Rights, Constitution and Oath of Office Being Taken Down in Military Break Rooms... Alex Jones highlights three instances and numerous articles in the last year and a half where soldiers have contacted his radio show to warn of the Army’s litmus tests, which gauge whether they will fire on American citizens or engage in gun confiscation. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines...ry-break-rooms







Gunboats Seen Patrolling in Eden Isles, Louisiana

Spot report: Gunboats, unmarked, fully equipped patrolling in Eden Isles or doing maneuvers?
This is taking place in the canals around Slidell, LA 10/25/13



( Slidell is a "bedroom community" of New Orleans... and I would say "Drill Weekend" ... but it was filmed on the Thursday morning ... when most of the "locals' are at work... )

Senate’s Letter To Obama On UN Treaty Goes Viral

It seems the stunt of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry has met with stiff opposition, and not just from the American Public. A list that was reported by the Mainstream Media as only 47 Senators signing a letter against the UN Arms Treaty, seems to be more like 50 and the list is growing. Meanwhile the Senate’s Open Letter to President Obama on the UN treaty he signed after they voted against it is going viral.

Fifty-one US Senators voted against allowing President Obama to sign a treaty and attempting to under mind the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Legislation was already completed. Instead, President Obama sent John Kerry to the UN to sign the treaty anyway. The Senate was not happy. People like Senator James Inhoffe (R-OK, head of the Senate Arms Committee) vowed to take stand after stand to get rid of this thing.

We also saw Representative Steve Stockman get up on the House floor and condemn President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry for their actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeBQ...layer_embedded

We were told that only 47 Senators stood up in an open letter. That is not true. The mainstream media may want it to be a minority of Senators signed that open letter, but according to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), it was over 50. That means that Democrats have signed it unlike the completely partisan politics they are trying to report. That letter is now being passed around the net.

Here is the letter that was sent to President Obama:

Dear President Obama:

We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:

First, the treaty was adopted by a procedure which violates a red line laid down by your own administration. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported the negotiation of the treaty only by “the rule of consensus decision-making.” But in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. We fear that this reversal has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.

Second, the treaty allows amendments by a three-quarters majority vote. As the treaty is amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the U.S. to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept. This would circumvent the power and duty of the Senate to provide its advice and consent on treaty commitments before they are assumed by the United States.

Third, the treaty includes only a weak non-binding reference to the lawful ownership and use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. It encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level, which would constitute the core of a national gun registry, and it creates a national “responsibility” to “prevent . . . [the] diversion” of firearms, which could be used to justify the imposition of controls within the U.S. that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment and infringe on the rights protected therein.

Fourth, the State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is “ambiguous.” By becoming party to the treaty, the U.S. would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear. The Senate cannot effectively provide advice on an ambiguous treaty, and it should never provide its consent to such a treaty.

Fifth, the criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They will restrict the ability of the U.S. to conduct our own foreign policy, and will steadily subject the U.S. to the influence of internationally-defined norms, a process that would impinge on our national sovereignty. We believe that treaties which allow foreign sources of authority to impose judgment or control upon the US, as this one does, violate the right of the American people, under the Constitution, to freely govern themselves.

Sixth, the State Department has acknowledged that “specific . . . country concerns, including Taiwan, China, and the Middle East, create challenges for establishing [treaty] criteria that can be applied without exception and fit U.S. national security interests. These concerns would make Senate ratification difficult.” We are indeed deeply concerned that the treaty criteria as established could hinder the United States in fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.

We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations. As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.

We appreciate your consideration on this issue and look forward to your response.

Provided to the AP by Sen. L. Alexander

http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/25/se...ty-goes-viral/

UN ARMS TREATY:
Kerry Says US Will Sign Controversial Agreement

John Kerry signs U.N. small arms treaty
Senators vow to stop ratification

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...stitution.html

United Nations Panel Demands ObamaCare Coverage for Illegal Aliens, Denounces ‘Racist’ Voter ID Laws
By Top Right News on March 30, 2014

Once again the United Nations is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong — in the affairs of American citizens.

The UN Human Rights Committee at its March 2014 session in Geneva issued its fourth report on human rights in the United States, blasting the “denial of coverage” through the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, to illegal aliens as a” human rights concern”.

Under the heading “Immigrants,” in the “concluding observations” portion of the report, the committee questions the “mandatory nature of the deportation of foreigners” and then addresses health care for those in the United States illegally.

“Finally, the Committee expresses concerns about the exclusion of millions of undocumented immigrants and their children from coverage under the Affordable Care Act and the limited coverage of undocumented immigrants and immigrants residing lawfully in the U.S. for less than five years by Medicare and Children Health Insurance, all resulting in difficulties in access of immigrants to adequate health care,” the report states.

Ironically, the Obama Administration and its ObamaCare “navigators” are violating U.S. law and the ACA itself by signing illegal aliens up for ObamaCare and refusing to check immigration status or deport any illegal alien who applies. But clearly even this doesn’t go far enough for the U.N., which wants our sovereignty completely eviscerated.

Under the heading “Gun Violence,” the U.N. calls for “legislation requiring background checks for all private firearm transfers,” and suggests a “review of Stand Your Ground Laws.”

The U.N. panel also harshly criticized U.S. states which have enacted common sense photo Voter I.D. laws, calling them “voter intimidation” and “restrictions” that suggest “racist” intent, and “disproportionately impact minorities and immigrants”.

Ironically, some members of the U.N. Human Rights Council include nations with horrific “human rights” abuses of their own, yet they ignore their own records and point the finger at the U.S. Among them: Libya, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Mexico. Interesting indeed that Mexico bars foreigners, let alone illegal aliens, from receiving medical care, and has far harsher immigration penalties than does the U.S. — yet is not criticized at all in this report.

One might laugh at what they say, if the Obama Administration didn’t consider U.N. views so strongly.

Last year, John Kerry signed the U.N. Treaty on Small Arms, and Obama tried to get the Senate — twice — to ratify it. The Treaty could have given Obama the Constitutional authority to effectively end the right to bear arms in the U.S. And Senate leader Harry Reid refused to “table” the vote, meaning it could be brought up at any time — another reason (if any more were needed) to “flip the Senate” this November.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=2177