Obama to sign UN Arms Treaty this month while congress is in recess - small arms involved

I might be wrong and lets hope i am , but it seems to me the Bush in 1990 signed a law that in time of need the UN could come in as a protective force in the US yes you read that right the UN has the right to help in time of need on US soil , Hillery C singed into law the UN small arms act in 2009 www.thenewamerican.com... from the link

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the United States support and participation in negotiating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to be finalized in 2012, signaling a shift in United States policy.

(2) An Arms Trade Treaty that regulates the domestic manufacture, possession, or purchase of civilian firearms and ammunition would infringe on the rights of United States citizens protected under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It is the sense of Congress that the sovereignty of the United States and the constitutionally protected freedoms of American gun owners must be upheld and not be undermined by the Arms Trade Treaty.

will see if i can find the US UN peacekeeping act here is the 1994 agreement www.fas.org... here is more on the PDD25 www.globalsecurity.org... and here is the 2 Senators that stood against HC on the UN Small arms treaty www.thenewamerican.com...

lot of reading and mind bending there, but in short TPTB sold the US to the UN in more ways than one denie it all you want do the digging you will find the US of A is a figment of days of old... NAFTA, UN Treaty's and other acts laws passed signed behind the scenes, have opened the door for UN control here is the US justice Dep review of the matter www.justice.gov... as i stated lets hope and pray I am wrong in the reading of what is there , but as it stands THE USA is under UN control , we are not to know it. one link is there twice , one for HC and the other is to show whom was against it er her signing

Remember that the clause says two thirds of the senators present must ratify a treaty. A play on words that can easily suggest that he only needs three senators, two of which to agree, to have the treaty ratified.

Just trying to help clarify a little.

reply to post by elouina

You are right about this. But Obama should not be doing this "symbolic" signing in the first place. Pure brazenness... By pretending to go through the motions he will be tricking the American public and the world, into thinking it is a done deal.

That's all he's ever done since the day he took office. That's why we see him out there giving speeches all day every day instead of working. I can't believe the fibs and misleading he spouts every single day to appeal to the low information voters for the next mid-term election.

That's why it's up to us and our elected state officials to inform the people.

The good news is...

Despite Obama’s pending signature, don’t panic just yet. The treaty must also be ratified by the Senate, which is unlikely to happen in the immediate future.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It doesn't matter.

The UN has no jurisdiction in America.

So it's a moot point. Obama can sign all the things he wants.

~Tenth

Unless he's planning on handing over jurisdication to the UN as well...

With the way this Government is riding over the constitution and the American way of life, nothing would surpise me anymore, including some sort of 'national emergency' designed to allow the country to be 'temporarily' run from and by the UN.

Stranger things have happened.

reply to post by MrSpad


So why do it???

I don't buy into the idea that it is symbolic in nature.

There is always some reason why Govt does crap like this.

Think small piece to a puzzle.

A stepping stone if you will.

reply to post by bekod


The fact is that is not until the standing president try to enforce a treaty the supreme court will step in to get the law in place and nullify such treaty if congress does not

Like I say the president can sign anything he wants but so far none of those treaties have been enforced in the US, only those that have to do with international commerce, so no reason to fight back.

As for gun manufactures they are protected under the constitution and I am sure that they have plenty of constitutional lawyers ready to appeal any treaties once the government try to enforce them, specially when it tramples over constitutional rights.

reply to post by MysterX


He can not unless he call himself a bonafide Dictator and supreme leader, disband congress and the supreme court, in America that will be a lot harder to do with the constitution we have.

Can it be done? oh, yeah, anything can be done, Hitler did it, if he have an army ready to stand behind him he could, but that is actually no going to happen.

reply to post by marg6043
Your forgetting what goes on behind closed doors here is a link that spells it all out yes I am reading between the lines , but then some one has to americanmilitarynews.com... from the link

New UN Ambassador Supports Giving Up Sovereignty To The United Nations!



On August 1st, Samantha Powers was confirmed by the US Senate to be the next US Ambassador to the United Nations. However, not everyone is thrilled about that, namely Senator Ted Cruz. Powers has advocated to giving up some sovereignty to the UN, claiming it will help keep us secure.

This is bull# and Sen. Cruz knows because he has spent much of his life fighting against abusive treaties and proposals out of the UN while he was Solicitor General of Texas. US sovereignty is essential to keeping America safe. Bravo Sen. Cruz!

______________________

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) released the following statement regarding today’s vote to confirm Samantha Power to be Ambassador to the United Nations:

Today I voted to oppose the nomination of Samantha Power to be Ambassador to the United Nations. My opposition to her nomination comes down to one word: sovereignty.

I have seen firsthand how treaties and conventions negotiated at the United Nations and elsewhere can have unintended consequences for the United States when I represented Texas before the US Supreme Court in successfully arguing that no President has the authority to force a state to comply with an order from the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

Samantha Power’s positions on the United Nations suggest she agrees with President Obama in giving the United Nations authority over fundamental rights, such as our right to bear arms, and in allowing US taxpayer dollars to be used at the UN to undermine our ally, Israel.

In 2003, she wrote that “giving up a pinch of sovereignty” to organizations such as the UN is good for the United States and our security.

There is no higher national security principle than defending American sovereignty, especially at the United Nations, where it has been demonstrated time and time again that when it comes to authority over the United States, when you give the UN a pinch, they will take a mile.


- See more at: americanmilitarynews.com...

it is all part of Agenda 21 missoulian.com... from the link

Agenda 21 is a United Nations charter adopted by 178 nations in 1992. President George H.W. Bush was our signatory. The workhorse for Agenda 21 is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

Missoula Mayor John Engen is a member and was praised by President Obama's administration for Missoula's ICLEI's initiatives. The Advocates for Our Republic oppose Agenda 21 because it will destroy our private enterprise economic system and replace it with a public/private partnership, which disregards our God-given and granted rights of private property. ICLEI will destroy our economy.

Agenda 21 runs counter to the U.S. Constitution which protects the middle class. Maurice Strong, Secretary General, UN, Conference on Environment and Development,1992, said the following: "current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable."

Engen has been praised by Agenda 21 leadership, CEOs of non-governmental organizations, CEOs of nonprofits, and ICLEI for the following:

1. The discouragement of businesses with inhibiting rules and costs and the hate crimes ordinance that condemns business owners without equal standing in civil court. The "victim" only has to believe that he or she hasn't been hired or hasn't received a promotion because the boss was intolerant of his or her sexual orientation.

2. Strong opposition to the megaloads in 2011, which cost Montanans' jobs and hurt businesses along the way, such as restaurants, etc. The ability to bargain for lower fuel prices to benefit businesses and individuals was lost, also.

3. The threat to timber harvest was ignored by Missoula city and county. Pressure could have been brought against the unjust legal standing caused by the Endangered Species Act, which cost hundreds of good paying harvest jobs, as well as the ripple effect jobs.

4. The mayor, city council, and county are ignoring the threat to the private property rights of ranchers, farmer and developers of natural resources now. The Bureau of Land Management's recent Resource Management Plan could return to wilderness their land, as well as private land to provide protection for the sage grouse's habitat.

5. When the state legislature opposed Obamacare, the mayor and other leaders requested and received Obamacare money for two clinics in Missoula, which duplicated existing facilities.

6. Support of bicycle and bus transportation at the expense of car owners. Many potholes remain unrepaired.

7. Support for accessory apartments and subsidized apartments, which is described as "smart growth" by ICLEI.

We can do nothing about Agenda 21, but we can vote Engen out of office and mitigate or reverse the initiatives.

Jeanette Zentgraf of Lolo is co-chair of Advocates for Our Republic.

Still think that the US is free Nation ?? think again

reply to post by marg6043
This is true but the UN could and would, one more Terror attack on the Home land see what happens. Jack boots with blue helmets going door to door? Boston was a proving ground to see if we would let it happen , and we did, then cheered after the fact.

reply to post by bekod




good research.

I say "screw the U.N." and all the horses they rode in on too.

Everybody needs to read the above post and keep reading it until you "get it".

There's always hidden things in those treaties, as well as many 'implied' and 'assumed' 'understandings' etc. etc.

I hope the government actually reads the damn thing this time

This kind of treaty may fly in California, NYC, NJ, CT, Chicago, and a handful of places throughout the US. It will never be enforceable in the South or the Mid-West.

They know this, they are trying to condition future generations to join the anti-2nd movement because they know it will get ugly if they push this on us today.

The UN and what army is going to try to enforce this?

reply to post by bekod


Remember any political whore can say anything they want and want anything for the nation but that is why we got three branches in the Government, just the desires of political whore political figures are not enough to change laws, specially those that have to do with the constitution.

So unless congress and the supreme court gets disbanded is nothing treaty that can be imposed in the US that will surpass the constitution is just not going to happen.

Actually under the constitution the powers of government goes as far as the citizens allow them to go

And when it comes to foreign governments they have not jurisdiction at all

Fact.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Fact.

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.

The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

So as you can see the opinions of the traitors in this nation are as good as what they crap

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.

www.sweetliberty.org...

1956, from your link

Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

ok out dated to say the least here is the sell out of the US to the UN www.freedomadvocates.org... long read but well worth it, sadly is is one of them "can not copy links" Yes the US has been sold out to the UN and hes been for some time, early mid 90's if your wondering about the time line,
here is one Executive Order 12803 - Infrastructure Privatization www.presidency.ucsb.edu... here is another showing it is just not on the Fed level but on a local level www.freedomadvocates.org...
now say there is no sell out, and there is no Agenda 21 and Obama can not sign this bill when he can and will ... will it hold up? lets hope not and pray cooler heads prevail.

I'm giving your thread a Bump and not starting a new thread, you've covered the bases very well, but it looks like Obama has giving that Puppet ( idiot ) Kerry his Marching Orders.

Kerry to sign UN arms treaty, despite senators' opposition

www.foxnews.com...
Yes, for the FOXNEWS Haters out there, other news outlets are covering this, so go ahead and Google it and pull your Panties out of your Crack!

Thankfully there is someone keeping a watchful eye and this Administration, knowing Obama and his need to Push his Agendas on the American Public.
'You may not take any executive action to implement this'...

CORKER WARNS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGAINST ANY ACTION TO IMPLEMENT U.N. ARMS TRADE TREATY WITHOUT SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT

www.foreign.senate.gov... ate-advice-and-consent
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.knoxvilledailysun.com...

Leave well-enough alone, You don't like our gun laws, move.

I used the search function and this was the only thread I found on the subject.

I'm so proud of the senators willing to take a stand alongside Iran and North Korea in opposition to this treaty.

links234
I'm so proud of the senators willing to take a stand alongside Iran and North Korea in opposition to this treaty.

I noticed that those darn right-wing, gun loving, die-hard conservatives up north of the border in Canada didn't sign it, either, citing possible concerns over its effects on civilian gun ownership. Go figure.

reply to post by vor78


They did, actually:
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF STATES IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY SAY ‘YES’ TO ARMS TRADE TREATY

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Syria.

reply to post by bekod


Yep they're already here :-

UN Peacekeepers began training the 4th week of July and will complete their nine week training by October 1st. They are learning English, as well as US weapon systems and Urban Warfare training.How many troops are training? 386,000 troops!

freepatriot.org...

Just one little staged event and their away.

Check Mate , U.S. Constitution .

well we shall see,if the US House and Senate go along with this: Kerry signs UN small arms traety www.nbcnews.com... from the link

olitics on

Kerry signs U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, says won't harm U.S. rights



By Michelle Nichols

updated 9/25/2013 4:35:30 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States signed a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty regulating the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms on Wednesday and the Obama administration sought to allay the fears of the powerful U.S. gun lobby which says the pact will violate the constitutional rights of Americans.

The treaty, which relates only to cross-border trade and aims to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers and criminals, still requires ratification by the U.S. Senate and has been attacked by the influential gun rights group the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Among the NRA arguments against the treaty are that it undermines American sovereignty and that it disregards the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to bear arms.
The United States, the world's No. 1 arms exporter, became the 91st country to sign when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry put pen to paper on the sidelines of the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations.

"It's significant that the United States, which amounts for about 80 percent of the world's export in arms, has signed," Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told a news conference.
The practical implications for U.S. arms manufacturers are likely to be limited since, as Kerry noted, the United States already has in place the kind of strict export controls for weapons that are outlined in the treaty.
"We are talking about the kind of export controls that for decades have not diminished one iota our ability in the United States as Americans to exercise our rights under the constitution," he said.

yea well it is just a matter of time before they come knocking on your front door. if you missed the big if here it is [still requires ratification by the U.S. Senate]will they stand up for you or will they roll over you?

He does sign that it is an act of Treason IMO

No, as I understand it this treaty just has to do with exporting weapons to other countries- not anything actually in the country.