Small Guns — Big Military

[Flanders]

If you are looking for a bumper sticker explaining the most important issue in the presidential race this thread is not for you.

Let’s get the media out of the way up-front.

Neither ratifying the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) nor ratifying the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) will get the coverage they deserve. If the MSM gives them any coverage it will be “fair and balanced” —— meaning the media supports ratification of both treaties. No surprise there since the LOST gives the United Nations the taxing authority it has long sought.

I do not know how taxing authority will be incorporated into the final draft of the ATT but I’ll wager that it will be there:

While the treaty is still in a draft stage, the United Nations is beginning a month-long process beginning this week to craft the final details of the treaty.

I’ve covered the LOST extensively over the years. Briefly stated this time around —— Democrats will try and ratify the LOST after the election and before January 3, 2013. John Kerry is leading the fight in the Senate to ratify. So far, only 27 Republicans said they will not ratify. Thirty-four votes are needed to stop ratification. All things considered, Democrats and RINO are much closer to ratifying than opponents are to stopping ratification.

I also posted numerous messages and articles opposing the ATT. That treaty takes control of Americans on a more personal level than does the LOST. That’s why I am convinced Democrats and RINO will also try to ratify the ATT before they lose the White House and the Senate. They will never again get the chance to ratify two anti-America treaties in one lame-duck session of Congress and they know it.

NOTE: From the UN’s perspective ratifying the LOST automatically gets the support of environmental frauds and freakazoids. Not so with the ATT. No matter how UN hustlers spin it they cannot connect environmental claptrap to abolishing the Second Amendment; hence, Democrats and RINO cannot hide behind the environment. That is the only advantage I can see in the coming fight to stop ratification.

If you like knowing what you are voting on watch these two videos as a preface to understanding the issue:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTMksYEz7TU&feature=player_embedded]Marxism in America - Lt. Gen. Ret. W. G. Jerry Boykin Video - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=player_embedded]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]

Few Americans decide who to vote against based on UN treaties. Most Americans do not know how Senate candidates stand on any UN treaty. Should Democrats manage to hang onto the Senate they will call their victories a mandate to ratify United Nations treaties before Hussein’s leaves.

A year ago:

Majority of Senate Opposes U.N. Gun Control Efforts
Submitted by NRA on Jul 24, 2011

Majority of Senate Opposes U.N. Gun Control Efforts

A majority of senators —— certainly 34 —— still feel the same way as far as I know.

A few days ago:

. . . some 130 lawmakers, consisting of mostly Republicans, but also including Democrats such as Reps. Jason Altmire, Sanford Bishop, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis and Peter DeFazio sent off a letter to the Obama administration opposing the treaty. The letter states that Congress is concerned the treaty could “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

So why in hell is Hussein & Company moving ahead as though they have the votes to ratify?:

The treaty was opposed by the Bush administration, but President Obama’s administration reversed direction on the treaty. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty.

The only thing I can figure is that Hussein will sign it in attempt to bypass ratification:

The ATT would specifically require signatories to identify and trace, in “a timely and reliable manner,” illicit small arms and light weapons. The information would be required to be submitted to the United Nations.

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty
Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom
Published: 15 hours ago
by JACK MINOR

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty

There is no doubt that Hussein will order his bureaucracies to give the UN everything it asks for. And do not forget that Hussein gave INTERPOL the authority to operate in this country —— and operate with diplomatic immunity —— should federal agencies balk at complying.

More importantly, the way a majority of Supreme Court justices view the Constitution there is every indication they will rule Hussein’s signature on the ATT carries as much legitimacy as does ratification.

In closing, let me remind everyone that disarming the American people increases the effectiveness of Hussein’s paramilitary force a thousand times; hence, my title. Without an armed citizenry able to defend itself Hussein’s military will carry the day easily. Add the media into the mix along with the “commander and chief’s” loyal officers who control the ranks, plus many in the highest level of government. Hell, they don’t need the millions in the parasite class who already believe guns are bad and the UN is good.

 

[Flanders]

I do not see the point in the State Department’s list of no-nos put out by Hillary Clinton’s playpen:

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

• There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

• There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

• The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

• There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

• There will be no lowering of current international standards.

• Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

• The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

• There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

State Dept. says UN arms treaty won't 'handicap' Second Amendment rights
By Julian Pecquet - 07/06/12 04:23 PM ET

State Dept. says UN arms treaty won't 'handicap' Second Amendment rights - The Hill's Global Affairs

Clinton is for ratification as is every shareholder in Hussein & Company. The State Department list tells me the ATT crowd is getting nervous. The opposite of nervous is: Everyone in the Administration who is involved in finalizing the Small Arms Treaty is so stupid they do not know that the UN’s objective is to eliminate every item on the list. Even if the UN only gets one item it will serve as a wedge. Getting more than one item will be a rout.

The final item on the list smells to high heaven:

• There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

International body has to be doublespeak for the World Court. I cannot envision another UN entity with the power to adjudicate treaty enforcement. Once the World Court rules against the United States the federal government will enforce the ruling. Worse still, it smells like an end run around the Connally Reservation. Not an unreasonable assumption on my part considering there is a majority of Internationalists sitting on the Supreme Court just waiting to institute non-existent “International law.”

Put Second Amendment and sovereignty issues aside and you will see that the State Department did NOT prohibit funding to enforce the ATT if it is ratified. Setting up, and funding, another UN agency to enforce the ATT is a foregone conclusion.

Every UN treaty ever written includes a mechanism for handing the UN taxing authority over the American people. The ATT will be no different. And, once again, the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to rule for the American people and against United Nations taxation. Did not Chief Justice Roberts just say that every tax is constitutional? It is not much of a stretch for Internationalists to include every United Nations tax.

Finally, regardless of how the ATT’s final draft reads there is no justification for gambling on interpretation. Hopefully, 34 senators will reject what the Administration is pulling with the ATT and refuse to ratify.

 

[Intense]

This is a back door to establish Law that otherwise would not pass through Congress, at least when viewed in the light of day. Using Treaties to circumvent Rights, Due Process, otherwise protected under the Constitution is, in truth, bottom feeding. Congress really has it's head up it's ass. A real Power Feeding Frenzy, yet the watch dogs remain mute.

 

[Flanders]

This is a back door to establish Law that otherwise would not pass through Congress, at least when viewed in the light of day. Using Treaties to circumvent Rights, Due Process, otherwise protected under the Constitution is, in truth, bottom feeding. Congress really has it's head up it's ass. A real Power Feeding Frenzy, yet the watch dogs remain mute.

To Intense: Exactly so. Were they all looking out for this country the Administration would simply have told the United Nations “The Connally Reservation will apply in every instance regardless of how the treaty is ultimately worded.” Instead of laying it out in plain English, Hillary Clinton released a public relations list written to lull suspicious senators into trusting the UN.

Note that with the help of Senate Democrats and the High Court every item on Clinton’s list can be manipulated to the UN’s advantage when six words in the hands of sovereignty-minded Americans were more than enough to thwart the UN’s nefarious scheme:

AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a back door to establish Law that otherwise would not pass through Congress, at least when viewed in the light of day. Using Treaties to circumvent Rights, Due Process, otherwise protected under the Constitution is, in truth, bottom feeding. Congress really has it's head up it's ass. A real Power Feeding Frenzy, yet the watch dogs remain mute.

"Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”


a. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

b. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

 

[Flanders]

PoliticalChic;5579368]

As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

To PoliticalChic: Prior to the United Nations, all of the political thinking centered on treaties between individual nations. I am pretty sure none of the Founders considered treaties with a global organization.

Do a little research on the forces working under the radar to repeal, or circumvent, the Connally Amendment in the UN Charter. Then ask yourself how much confidence you have in?:

b. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”

To PoliticalChic: Even with a sympathetic Supreme Court on their side, it is not hard to figure out why the global government crowd is working so hard to invalidate the Connally Amendment by UN treaty instead of achieving their objective with an Amendment to the Constitution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic;5579368]

As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

To PoliticalChic: Prior to the United Nations, all of the political thinking centered on treaties between individual nations. I am pretty sure none of the Founders considered treaties with a global organization.

Do a little research on the forces working under the radar to repeal, or circumvent, the Connally Amendment in the UN Charter. Then ask yourself how much confidence you have in?:

b. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”

To PoliticalChic: Even with a sympathetic Supreme Court on their side, it is not hard to figure out why the global government crowd is working so hard to invalidate the Connally Amendment by UN treaty instead of achieving their objective with an Amendment to the Constitution?

Perhaps you missed my point:


1. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!
b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!
c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

2. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
Op.Cit.

 

[Intense]

This is a back door to establish Law that otherwise would not pass through Congress, at least when viewed in the light of day. Using Treaties to circumvent Rights, Due Process, otherwise protected under the Constitution is, in truth, bottom feeding. Congress really has it's head up it's ass. A real Power Feeding Frenzy, yet the watch dogs remain mute.

"Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”


a. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

b. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

We are Never more than one Supreme Court decision away from losing it all. Regardless of what we proclaim. Don't kid yourself. Too many 5/4 splits. Who would have known that black and white, that principle was so divided, so much of the time. It is all arbitrary, nothing matters, but their will, the flavor of the day.

 

[Intense]

PoliticalChic;5579368]

As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

To PoliticalChic: Prior to the United Nations, all of the political thinking centered on treaties between individual nations. I am pretty sure none of the Founders considered treaties with a global organization.

Do a little research on the forces working under the radar to repeal, or circumvent, the Connally Amendment in the UN Charter. Then ask yourself how much confidence you have in?:

b. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”

To PoliticalChic: Even with a sympathetic Supreme Court on their side, it is not hard to figure out why the global government crowd is working so hard to invalidate the Connally Amendment by UN treaty instead of achieving their objective with an Amendment to the Constitution?

Perhaps you missed my point:


1. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!
b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!
c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

2. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
Op.Cit.

If it has power over the Government Members, it has Power over the Armies those Governments control, by default. Why would it need an Army of it's own?

 

[Flanders]

Perhaps you missed my point:

To PoliticalChic: Possible but highly unlikely.

I was exploring your reliance on appearances. I was trying to point out that the Constitution is under constant attack by the forces of creative interpretation. No attack is more relentless than the assault on America’s independence. I don’t want to stray into the immigration issue, but open-borders is a visible attack Americans see and understand, while UN treaties are more subtle, and infinitely more destructive in the long run.

 

[Intense]

Perhaps you missed my point:

To PoliticalChic: Possible but highly unlikely.

I was exploring your reliance on appearances. I was trying to point out that the Constitution is under constant attack by the forces of creative interpretation. No attack is more relentless than the assault on America’s independence. I don’t want to stray into the immigration issue, but open-borders is a visible attack Americans see and understand, while UN treaties are more subtle, and infinitely more destructive in the long run.

People like Hillary are more concerned about concentration of power and who get's to hold the reigns, than Our National Sovereignty. That type will repeatedly bet it all.

 

[Flanders]

People like Hillary are more concerned about concentration of power and who get's to hold the reigns, than Our National Sovereignty. That type will repeatedly bet it all.

To Intense: Absolutely. They have nothing to lose by betting something they do not own.

 

[Flanders]

This very informative update:

UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics
Published July 11, 2012 FoxNews.com

UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News

convinces me the Administration must have a hidden agenda behind their participation in this treaty in an election year. I cannot see how the ATT can do Hussein any good with voters. He has to have something up his sleeve besides a filthy, hairy, arm. I offered one possibility:

Quote OP

So why in hell is Hussein & Company moving ahead as though they have the votes to ratify?:

The treaty was opposed by the Bush administration, but President Obama’s administration reversed direction on the treaty. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty.

The only thing I can figure is that Hussein will sign it in attempt to bypass ratification:

The ATT would specifically require signatories to identify and trace, in “a timely and reliable manner,” illicit small arms and light weapons. The information would be required to be submitted to the United Nations.

There is no doubt that Hussein will order his bureaucracies to give the UN everything it asks for. And do not forget that Hussein gave INTERPOL the authority to operate in this country —— and operate with diplomatic immunity —— should federal agencies balk at complying.

More importantly, the way a majority of Supreme Court justices view the Constitution there is every indication they will rule Hussein’s signature on the ATT carries as much legitimacy as does ratification.

Now, I’m running scared. If I can figure out the most obvious way to beat ratification there has to be more to it.

 

[Flanders]

First let me point out that the:

Law of the Sea Treaty is dead
By: Hope Hodge
7/16/2012 03:46 PM

Law of the Sea Treaty is dead

Unfortunately, another UN treaty —— UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities —— has popped up to replace the LOST in the big push for ratification(s) before Democrats lose the Senate.

As I’ve been saying all along, voters should focus on Senate elections because Hussein is gone anyway. Senate Democrats and RINO hope to ratify UN treaties so Hussein takes the blame with him when he leaves.

Note that two guys who came close to being president support the treaty.

. . . Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced that he will hold the markup next Thursday, July 26.

Kerry is a Democrat who is only doing what Democrats do.

As bad as Hussein is, everybody who voted for John McCain in 2008 should get down on their knees and thank the good Lord he lost:

The treaty has broad bipartisan support, with many senators — including Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) — arguing that it would merely extend the protections of the ADA to people with disabilities around the world, including Americans living abroad.

Sen. DeMint taps brakes on UN treaty as home-school opposition grows
By Julian Pecquet - 07/19/12 06:13 PM ET

Sen. DeMint taps brakes on UN treaty as home-school opposition grows - The Hill's Global Affairs

No one knows how many UN treaties would have been ratified with a RINO, and a war hero to boot, sitting in the White House.

Incidentally, I’ll wager that not one senator who supports this treaty can guarantee it does not contain a hidden clause that gives taxing authority to the United Nations.

Finally, I posted this update in this thread in the hopes new readers will start with the OP and end up getting a handle on the entire question of UN treaties.

 

[Flanders]

It really breaks my heart that United Nations gun control thugs are unhappy:

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty negotiations are coming down to the wire. A new draft of the treaty language was circulated on July 24th, with the hope that a consensus could be reached before the scheduled deadline for completion of the treaty by July 27th.

The draft does not please the arms control crowd, who believe it is full of loopholes.

At first glance those loopholes appear to be good news for Americans. They aren’t.

This, too, appears to be good news:

Wood blamed the United States for creating “designer loopholes” and said that President Obama was “sitting on the key to the door.” Considering what Amnesty International would like to see lying behind that door - a comprehensive global arms control treaty with transnational enforcement mechanisms - we can only hope that Obama continues sitting on the key.

Joseph A. Klein goes on to say:

It does appear that, behind the scenes, the United States pressed for the omission of ammunition from the scope of covered items and got its way. If that is the case, then President Obama has done something right in the short term at least, motivated no doubt by political considerations to avoid Second Amendment issues until after the election.

UN Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations Coming Down To The Wire
Joseph A. Klein Tuesday, July 24, 2012

UN Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations Coming Down To The Wire

Hussein never did anything —— short or long-term —— to defend America’s sovereignty, least of all protect the Second Amendment from ravenous United Nations hyenas.

Political considerations to avoid Second Amendment issues before November barely scratch the surface of the treachery involved in the Small Arms Treaty. Hussein & Company want this treaty ratified regardless of what is in it. Irrespective of what a treaty says the global government crowd will twist its meaning in the UN’s World Court the same way they used our judicial system to twist the US Constitution to fit their agenda. The SCOTUS already has four justices, possibly five, who will rubberstamp any decision the World Court hands down. Bottom line: A UN treaty containing nothing more than a comma and a period should never be ratified because ratification is the key that opens the door not what the treaty says.