As we’ve seen time and again, the United Nations is little more than an ineffective, morally squishy, highly corrupted joke of an international bureaucracy that in the long run has done hardly anything productive in stabilizing global affairs or promoting lasting peace. Honestly, why do we contribute funding (and the lion’s share, at that!) to this globalist boondoggle? So we can be lectured about how our economic prowess is ostensibly creating a climate emergency while China sits smugly on their Human Rights Council? Thanks, but I’ll pass on the proffered guilt trip.
Throughout the month, the United Nations is working on an arms treaty ostensibly aimed at reducing violence that has America’s pro-Second Amendment crowd up in arms. While President Bush was reliably resistant to heeding the U.N. on the idea (bravo!), President Obama reversed U.S. policy on that score in 2009 by bringing the U.S. back to the bargaining table:
International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights. …
While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel…
LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations. …
“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did. Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”
The United Nations can’t manage to get its act together on cracking down on genocide, terrorism, and human rights abuses, but we’re to trust them to orchestrate regulations that would clash with our own policies?
This treaty needs 67 votes to get through the Senate.
Right now 30 Senators oppose it.
18 more will not say where they stand.
No wonder Obama and his UN are pushing it right now.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mcconnell-says-no-to-un-treaty
Of course our ‘leaders’ are willing to abdicate any responsibility to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, it’s easier than being responsible to their oaths of office. Personally I’d prefer that the UN is toss out of NY and we stop ANY payments. Let this evil POS die the death it deserves.
The problem for the Obama administration and the UN is the 100 million armed Americans who know what the Constitution says. The right to have the means to resist tyrants is not something which is granted by governments but is a human right. That means if you are human, you have that right. The DEADLINE is violating the 2nd amendment. To do so, is cause and reason for armed Americans to force changes to our national leadership.
We are all well aware of Obama’s continued bypassing of Congress to get his agenda passed. So what happens if he does the same here: What if instead of going to the Senate, Hillary violates the normal process, takes the treaty directly to the President and he signs it? Would it be binding or not? I’m sure that the crooked UN would Say it’s valid, claiming that it was officially signed. I doubt that Harry Reid would allow the Senate to take any action.