Posts

Good News from Washington — UN Arms Trade Treaty DOA in US Senate

Photo Credit: REUTERSSens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) released a bipartisan letter this week signed by 48 of their colleagues pledging to oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Secretary of State John Kerry signed on behalf of the United States in September.

This letter makes it clear that the Senate will not ratify the treaty in the foreseeable future.

Since a treaty requires a two-thirds majority to win the Senate’s advice and consent, the ATT is at least 17 votes short of the 67 votes needed to secure ratification. And if anything, the Moran-Manchin letter understates Senate opposition to the treaty.

Eleven other senators, all Democrats, supported either an amendmentopposing the ATT offered earlier this year by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a concurrent resolution led earlier this year by Moran, a 2012 letter led by Moran or a 2011 letter led by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

Put it all together, and a total of 61 senators either have pledged to oppose the ATT or have publicly expressed skepticism about it. If it ever reaches the Senate, the ATT is more likely to be opposed by 67 senators than to find a two-thirds majority willing to support it.

Read more from this story HERE.

NRA Blasting Obama Admin for Signing UN Arms Trade Treaty (+video)

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

On September 25, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The NRA described the action as another clear example of the Obama administration’s “contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.”

According to the NRA: “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme [and is full of regulations and requirements that are] blatant attacks on the constitutional rights of every law-abiding American.”

The NRA warns that the ATT “urges record keeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including ‘end use or end user documentation’ for a ‘minimum of ten years.'” This information on end users is a de-facto registry and one that could be “made available to foreign governments.” Read more from this story HERE.

Listen as Rep. Mike Kelly, Rep. Jim Bridenstine and their colleagues explain the extreme dangers of what the Obama Administration has done with the ATT:

Fox in the Hen House: Iran to Chair United Nations Arms Control Forum

Photo Credit: APIran will preside over the United Nations arms control forum this month, despite the fact that it is under U.N. sanctions for illicit nuclear activities and routinely supplies arms to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in violation of international law.

The U.N.’s annual Conference on Disarmament, which Iran is slated to lead from May 27 to June 23, is the organization’s primary multilateral forum for negotiating arms control agreements.

The forum has given way to major international treaties on nuclear non-proliferation, prohibitions on chemical weapons, and bans on nuclear tests.

UN Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog group, blasted the decision to allow Iran to chair the conference.

“This is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of a women’s shelter,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer in a statement. “Iran is an international outlaw state that illegally supplies rockets to Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, aiding and abetting mass murder and terrorism. To make this rogue regime head of world arms control is simply an outrage. Abusers of international norms should not be the public face of the U.N.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Texas AG to Obama: I’ll Sue if U.N. Arms Treaty is ratified

Photo Credit: AP

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying that the state will head to court over the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty should Mr. Obama sign it and the U.S. Senate ratify it.

“The UN has concluded its negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty,” Mr. Abbotwrites. “It is now up to you to sign it — or reject it. Do not sign this treaty.”

Mr. Abbott writes that he understands the apparent purpose is to combat illegal arms trafficking around the world, but that the treaty could draw law-abiding gun owners and gun operators “into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty.”

“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document,” he continues. “Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.”

Darryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups have distorted the meaning of the treaty. He said it is about the global trade of dangerous weapons, not individual rights within the United States.

Read more from this story HERE.

Last Minute Reversal: U.S. will "Vote Yes" on UN Arms Treaty

Photo Credit: Daily Caller

The National Shooting Sports Foundation today strongly objected to the last-minute reversal of the U.S. government position regarding the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. In the closing hours of negotiations on Thursday, March 28, the government abandoned its previous insistence that the treaty be approved only through achieving “consensus” of all the member states. Requiring consensus had been the United States position going back to earlier administrations.

At the end of the session, a U.S. government spokesperson told reporters “It’s important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly.” The spokesperson went on to say that the United States would vote “yes” on the treaty in the General Assembly, regardless of the positions of other member states. By abandoning the requirement for consensus the United States is assuring passage of the treaty by the United Nations.

“This abrupt about-face on the long-standing United States requirement for ‘consensus’ illustrates that the Obama Administration wants a sweeping U.N. arms control treaty,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “We are troubled by the timing of the Obama Administration’s decision to abandon consensus on the eve of the Senate debate on pending gun control measures. The United Nations treaty would have a broad impact on the U.S. firearms industry and its base of consumers in the U.S.”

Read more from this story HERE.

UN Arms Trade Treaty deadline today: Revised draft gives hope to gun control advocates

Photo credit: paljoakim

A revised draft of a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade raised hopes from supporters and the British government, which has been the leading proponent, that an historic agreement could be reached by Friday’s deadline for action.

The draft circulated late Thursday closed several loopholes in the original text, though the Washington-based Arms Control Association said further improvements are still needed to strengthen measures against illicit arms transfers.

A spokesman for Britain’s U.N. Mission, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the new text is “a substantial improvement” and “an historic agreement that effectively regulates the international trade in conventional arms is now very close.”

The estimated $60 billion international arms trade is unregulated, though countries including the U.S. have their own rules on exports.

Opponents in the U.S., especially the powerful National Rifle Association, have portrayed the treaty as a surrender of gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The issue of gun control, always politically explosive one for American politicians, has re-emerged since last week’s shooting at a Colorado cinema killed 12 people.

Read more from this story HERE.

UN trying to sucker the US into another bad treaty, this one gutting parental rights

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

This past week, 34 senators, the bare minimum, were convinced to stand against the internationalist Law of the Sea Treaty.  Today, Obama may attempt to subject the US to the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.  But another bad UN treaty that has not received the same amount of publicity as LOST and the Arms Trade Treaty, is also being considered.  This proposed treaty addresses national laws pertaining to persons with disabilities.  According to Rick and Karen Santorum, parents of a disabled child, the proposed treaty is an attack on the fundamental rights of parents to educate, care, and raise their disabled children:

On the surface, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”) calls for numerous protections for people with disabilities. Many of these protections are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, CRPD also includes provisions that were drafted by the United Nations and should concern all Americans. If ratified, CRPD would become the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and would trump state laws, and could be used as precedent by state and federal judges. Since it is a treaty, the Constitution requires that it must be ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate.

There are two very troubling provisions in this treaty. The first spreads the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the Federal government, acting under U.N. directions, can determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. The second, the education provision of CRPD does not support the parental rights rules of past U.N. human rights treaties. Omission of these rules would potentially eradicate parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

Over the years we have seen many U.N. treaties which can endanger the American way of life by attempting to trump U.S. laws. As a matter of foreign policy, we firmly believe that we should never allow our beliefs and values to be outsourced to outside entities that may not always have our best interests in mind.

On this particular treaty, however, we come at it from a more personal experience.

During our campaign for president, many of you learned about our daughter Bella. She is a special-needs child who has blessed our hearts. In working with health-care professionals, we found that a few advised treatments were not only not helpful to Bella, but could actually be quite harmful. As parents, it was crucial to be involved to make the proper decision for the best benefits of our child. And through our experience caring for her, we found that we are far from alone.

Read more from the Santorums’ critique of the CRPD HERE.

Photo credit: