So what to make of this UN Arms Trade Treaty?
Just as the world's worst human rights violators sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected on Saturday to a top position on the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York. It began July 2 and extends through July 27.
This came right after the same U.N. found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to the murderous Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, currently slaughtering thousands of its own citizens as an impotent U.N. joins the U.S. administration in standing around and watching.
Well Clinton is an eunthusiasctic supporter and Obama will eagerly sign it.
Now go to this link found by Weerd:
Just have a look at the picture. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez standing at the UN. Two people who are vying to be the Next Hiter, and they’re going to be instrumental parts in the UN’s actions.
Recall the useful idiots that think the UN has not just a legal legitimacy but a moral one too.
The same administration that claims Executive Privilege over Fast and Furious is eager and happy about an arms control racket. Never mind that the US's international arms sales are already heavily regulated. ITAR anyone?
The treaty also establishes a bizarre moral equivalence between countries that trade arms to defend freedom and those that do so to suppress and extinguish it. Would such a treaty allow us to sell weapons to Taiwan or Israel?
It's not so bizarre when you realize that evil regimes that regularly supply arms to other evil regimes are just fine with it. And even if the Treaty doesn't affect rights in the US it would severely curtail them in other countries? That's like saying Obama supports goverment censorship of media, publishing, and internet, but only outside the US.
Ace also thinks this whole thing stinks and points out that while the Senate probably not approve of this treaty, such Constitutional Limits wouldn't stop the President. Especially, given that this was the man that went to the UN for approval to go to war with Libya, and not congress.
This goes back to being under the radar. Well... no this is the exact oposite of under the radar.
Consider the optics. At the start this is a UN dictate to take away American Civil Liberties.
Yes it's not Blue Helmets marching the streets taking guns, but that's because the UN has outsourced the job to American Law Enforcement. And really that makes sense, the UN in and of itself is toothless, but a fancy treaty with a UN stamp could give the president cover to push his desires.
Could you see mass registration, restrictions on ownership and "normalization" of carry permits and the like? Sure.
Now Obama can take the treaty to the Senate for approval, which would be a plate of red meat.
You think ObamaCare Tax has traction among the Right to figh? Imagine a UN gun control regime.
Or Obama can ignore congress and just deem such a treaty law of the land.
Consider that. A law that infringes on the Bill of Rights, that came from a fogeign body, and is enacted without any vote by Congress. How is that not a blatant violation of the Oath of Office?
You see those Republican Governors saying they won't participate in Obamacare? Now imagine if the President declared that all their gun laws were being "federalized" to bring them in line with the UN mandate.
Yeah, that'll go over well.
To draw an analogy. Imagine if the UN passed a treaty that severely curtailed free speech, and that the president decided to just enforce it, ignoring both the role of the Senate to approve treaties and the Bill of Rights.