Tag: arms treaty

Obama Sells Out American Sovereignty to the U.N. by Signing Arms Treaty

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

gun rightsIf you were Barack Hussein Obama, and your attempt at Gun Confiscation had failed miserably, with both Congressional and widespread public opposition to your efforts, what do you do?

…after you threw a temper tantrum on national television…

Simple: You sign over your nation’s sovereignty to the United Nations.

United States of America Secretary of State John Kerry announced yesterday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, in spite of bipartisan resistance in Congress. Congress is concerned that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, in a written statement, which he released as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, proclaimed that the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty…

We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.

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.”

On April 2nd of this year, in the modern-day Tower of Babylon, known as the United Nations, a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade was passed by the delegates. oblivious to worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that this agreement could be the precursor to a national firearms registry.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that participating countries will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the unwavering support of Obama and his Administration, the General Assembly vote totaled 155 to 3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.

The problem with the treaty is that is positively porous, due to all of the loopholes contained in it. The list of controlled weaponry in it includes “small arms and light weapons”. Of course, the U.N. claims that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a sovereign nation. What does that mean?

It means that we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Our Founders  added “A Bill of Rights” to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. The second Amendment, found in that Bill of Rights, states…

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

By selling out our sovereignty to the United Nations, President Barack Hussein Obama is definitely infringing on our rights as American Citizens as specified in the Second Amendment, and ignoring the Oath which he has taken, twice, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

All because he did not get his way.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Gun Control: Hey, UN…Molon Labe

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

guncontrolThere are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a sovereign nation. What does that mean?

It means that we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

And, that is what makes the following news, disturbing.

Yesterday, in the modern-day Tower of Babylon, known as the United Nations, a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade was passed by the delegates. oblivious to worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that this agreement could be the precursor to a national firearms registry.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that participating countries will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the unwavering support of Obama and his Administration, the General Assembly vote totaled 155 to 3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.

The problem with the treaty is that is positively porous, due to all of the loopholes contained in it. The list of controlled weaponry in it includes “small arms and light weapons”. Of course, the U.N. claims that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

This reassurancecomes from the same bunch who equates Zionism to Racism.

On the bright side, in its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a non-binding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.

Per Sen. Inhofe,

It’s time the Obama Administration recognizes [the treaty] is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights. Furthermore, this treaty could also disrupt diplomatic and national security efforts by preventing our government from assisting allies like Taiwan, South Korea or Israel when they require assistance.

Amnesty International was doing back-flips of joy over the signing of the treaty…

The voices of reason triumphed over skeptics, treaty opponents and dealers in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses,” said Frank Jannuzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA.

AI is an International Human Rights Group which presents itself as an ideologically disinterested and apolitical organization. According to Amnesty International, it

does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

The lion’s share of Amnesty International’s criticism is usually directed at the United States. In the 1980s AI joined leftist non-governmental organizations like the Church World Service and Americas Watch in loud opposition to the Reagan administration’s support for the Contra resistance movement against Nicaragua’s Communist dictatorship.

In more recent years, AI has emerged as a vocal critic of the U.S.-led War on Terror, opposing especially the American-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

My question is, what legitimate right does the United Nations and any of the countries therein, have to “make rulings” affecting the Second Amendment of the United States Contitution and us American citizens who are protected under it?

Answer:  none

Steven Groves, writing for Heritage.org, said it very well,

The proper exercise of diplomacy by the United States does not threaten our sovereignty. The Founding Fathers understood the value of diplomacy. They drafted the Constitution, in part, because they wanted the United States to be able to negotiate treaties with other nations. But they also understood that American foreign policy must ultimately be controlled by the American people.

That is why, for instance, the United States Senate must approve treaties that are negotiated by the President. That is how our diplomatic process works. But today, American sovereignty is threatened by the many treaties that seek to take power away from the nations that negotiate them. The solution is not to reject treaties or diplomacy: it is to return to the vision of the Founders, and to their belief that the American people have an inherent right of self-government, through their elected representatives, that cannot be extinguished by any treaty.

The drafters of the Declaration would be surprised to find Americans submitting themselves to these international organizations, and the constraints on independence that they have spawned. The United States may, of course, work with other nations in a principled way that advances its national interests. But the Founders would be amazed by the extent and depth of the threats to American sovereignty posed by this new transnationalist vision.

The Founders did not risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor casting off the rule of King George III so that, two hundred years later, the United States could subject itself to the whims of unelected foreign bureaucrats and international lawyers. Sovereignty was essential to the founding of America in 1776, and it is essential to America today.

By declaring its independence from King George III and the British Parliament, America declared its sovereignty. By dedicating itself to the principles of liberty, equality, and popular consent, it set the standard by which all sovereign nations are to be judged.

This Administration seems bound and determined to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history.

Their pure ignorance to America’s place in the world is overwhelming. Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN, will America be respected, and left alone, as the sovereign nation that we are.

Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, is an stunning example of this naivete and downright ignorance.

Here is today’s Big Idea (thank you, Preacher):

As regards the present situation, concerning American citizens and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Average Americans do not trust the United Nations, or the present occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Molon Labe.

Until He Comes,

KJ