It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Letter Sent To Obama from Senate - Objections To His Signing UN Arms Treaty - Going Viral

page: 1
18

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
How often do we sit here helpless thinking that our elected representatives are not fighting for our rights? Little did I know that there has been a fight going on all along. I thought you would all be interested in seeing an example of why we elect them in the first place, to represent our will, and to be our voice. This thread represents my voice although spoken by others, to be shared with each and everyone of you.



It seems the stunt of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry has met with stiff opposition, and not just from the American Public. A list that was reported by the Mainstream Media as only 47 Senators signing a letter against the UN Arms Treaty, seems to be more like 50 and the list is growing. Meanwhile the Senate’s Open Letter to President Obama on the UN treaty he signed after they voted against it is going viral.

Fifty-one US Senators voted against allowing President Obama to sign a treaty and attempting to under mind the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Legislation was already completed. Instead, President Obama sent John Kerry to the UN to sign the treaty anyway. The Senate was not happy. People like Senator James Inhoffe (R-OK, head of the Senate Arms Committee) vowed to take stand after stand to get rid of this thing.


Congressman Stockman has more than a few words to say about Obama signing the UN Treaty. For starters, Obama is making the US look bad. As per stockman, "In the tradition of treaties, once a treaty is signed, our nation typically follows that treaty." But Obama took it upon himself to sign it with total disregard to what our representatives or the people want. Watch this video at your own risk, it will get your blood boiling. Our elected representatives know, they see everything, so why is nothing being done?


The letter is quite long so please visit the link to read the other 5 out of 6 reasons the Senate objects.



Dear President Obama:
We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:

First, the treaty was adopted by a procedure which violates a red line laid down by your own administration. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported the negotiation of the treaty only by “the rule of consensus decision-making.” But in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. We fear that this reversal has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.

[Reasons 2..3..4..5..6.. etc...]

We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations. As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.

Senate’s Letter To Obama On UN Treaty Goes Viral . . . good news? maybe. . .

Confirmatory source:
House, Senate Tell Obama UN Arms Treaty Ratification Not Happening

edit on 28-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

edit on 28-10-2013 by occrest because: link added



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Awesome! A step in the right direction at least.

I pray that our benevolent dicta---err...leader listens.


TextWe urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations. As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.


Now if only the same senators stood up when NDAA, Patriot act, ACA NAFTA, etc was passed....
Frikkin dog and pony, 3 card monte game these guys play...never know what to believe/expect anymore

edit on 28-10-2013 by occrest because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
From Kelly.house.gov

“Today the People’s House takes a stand for national sovereignty where the White House failed to do so. The ATT is a clear threat to the Constitutional rights of all Americans and should never have been signed. This letter makes it absolutely clear to President Obama and his cabinet that the United States Congress will not support any implementing legislation to give this dangerous treaty the legs it needs to take effect. We will also oppose any efforts by this administration or future ones to implement or enforce this treaty through executive action. The liberty of the American people and the independence of the United States are far too sacred to ever be sacrificed at the altar of a dysfunctional global institution like the United Nations. For the sake of our freedom at home and our strength abroad, this fight must continue.”


His website says that 181 members of Congress signed the letter



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by occrest
 


Well we are not out of the woods yet. To quote the Breitbart link I mentioned above:



The good news for gun owners is that a ratifying resolution of the ATT would require two-thirds support in the Senate. With 50 Senators on record in opposition to the treaty, such a super majority is not possible at this time.

Yet diligence is required, because a shift in the makeup of the Senate could open the door to future ratification.


We need to be careful who we get into the senate now that this is signed. Obama knew what he was doing, and this really scares me. We have been set up.

edit on 28-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


They are not fighting for your rights, but the rights of gun companies.

This treaty is not about local trade, but sets high regulations on international trade. This would affect the profits of US gun companies, as US is the largest exporter of firearms in the world.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Ya i know...all bluster and hot air from washington. This is the 'shiny' in the right hand we are supposed to look at while the left hand is picking our pockets....a temporary distraction from Obamacare.
edit on 28-10-2013 by occrest because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Cabin
reply to post by elouina
 


They are not fighting for your rights, but the rights of gun companies.

This treaty is not about local trade, but sets high regulations on international trade. This would affect the profits of US gun companies, as US is the largest exporter of firearms in the world.


At least one person knows the truth about this treaty.

Signing this treaty will change no laws here in the states. This treaty is meant to track weapon sales by companies and everyone knows how the GOP wets its pants when someone wants to hold companies accountable for their actions.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Cabin
They are not fighting for your rights, but the rights of gun companies.

That IS fighting for our rights. We have a right to buy the product that the gun companies put out. We have a right to self defense. We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to go target shooting or gun collecting. The U.N. has NO RIGHT to interfere with our rights as Americans. And Obama has NO RIGHT to give our rights away.

Oh ... and gun companies have rights too. They have a right to be in business. They have a right to supply us with our fire arms. They have a right to make products that we want ... products that offer us self protection. They have a right to make a profit as well.



buster2010
everyone knows how the GOP wets its pants when someone wants to hold companies accountable for their actions.

Gun manufacturing companies don't shoot innocent people.
They aren't 'accountable' for the insanity of a few shooters.
Crazy people go steal guns and do the shooting up ....or inner city gang banger types ...
Gun companies responsibly provide a product that MILLIONS of Americans want/need.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

FlyersFan

Cabin
They are not fighting for your rights, but the rights of gun companies.

That IS fighting for our rights. We have a right to buy the product that the gun companies put out. We have a right to self defense. We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to go target shooting or gun collecting. The U.N. has NO RIGHT to interfere with our rights as Americans. And Obama has NO RIGHT to give our rights away.

Oh ... and gun companies have rights too. They have a right to be in business. They have a right to supply us with our fire arms. They have a right to make products that we want ... products that offer us self protection. They have a right to make a profit as well.



buster2010
everyone knows how the GOP wets its pants when someone wants to hold companies accountable for their actions.

Gun manufacturing companies don't shoot innocent people.
They aren't 'accountable' for the insanity of a few shooters.
Crazy people go steal guns and do the shooting up ....or inner city gang banger types ...
Gun companies responsibly provide a product that MILLIONS of Americans want/need.


This treaty will change NO LAWS here in the states this is only for international sales by companies. And companies are not people you can buy and sell companies unless you want to bring back slavery you can't do that with people.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


It boggles my mind that my elders in high government positions today arent all throwing up arms in protest of this UN sham treaty to disarm our god given right to bear arms. I am in my 20s and I absolutely understand the significance of the second amendment. No one fears or listens to the peaceful one with no means to defend himself, now arm that peaceful one with a rifle and a few handguns and what do ya know? Everyone recognizes that one. It is sad that humanity needs it to be that way but until things have changed and it isnt absolutely necessary for one to defend his or her rights, then every soul on this planet should be given a means to defend those rights. Anyone that says otherwise needs to be intensely scrutinized by his or her peers for sanity and then given a FACTUAL history book for references before they spout off some corrupted rhetoric theyve been paid to put in to law. This can only go on for so long before they push too far though.....duh duhhh duhhhnunununununnnn



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
It doesn't matter what it is for - the majority said no and it was done anyway.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NiZZiM
 





It boggles my mind that my elders in high government positions today arent all throwing up arms in protest

that is the bigger picture



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

FlyersFan
That IS fighting for our rights. We have a right to buy the product that the gun companies put out. We have a right to self defense. We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to go target shooting or gun collecting. The U.N. has NO RIGHT to interfere with our rights as Americans. And Obama has NO RIGHT to give our rights away.

Oh ... and gun companies have rights too. They have a right to be in business. They have a right to supply us with our fire arms. They have a right to make products that we want ... products that offer us self protection. They have a right to make a profit as well.


You do not seem to get the point of this treaty. This hasnothing to do with local US gun laws. The treaty itself affirms any member country can do whatever they want with guns inside their territory - if guns cross the borders, let us say US to Mexico or US to Canada, then this treaty comes in - international trade.

It simply sets high regulations on the guns being exported. If some US gun company wants to sell guns to some store in another country, the transportation has to be extremely secure and every gun has to be tracked so it would not end up in wrong hands on the way or go into some terrorist group who made up a company to gain firearms. Also certain countries and groups are out of hand, for example US companies would not be able to sell guns to North Korea, Syria, Sudan or Taliban. Although as far as I get it depends whose side is UN on. This simply eliminates UN member countries gun companies supplying both sides - allies and enemies of the nation - at the same time, as it has happened before.


edit on 28-10-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
He got all the way to the white house.
How did he get there without a basic understanding of what the president has the authority to do and what he has no authority to do?



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

buster2010

FlyersFan

Cabin
They are not fighting for your rights, but the rights of gun companies.

That IS fighting for our rights. We have a right to buy the product that the gun companies put out. We have a right to self defense. We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to go target shooting or gun collecting. The U.N. has NO RIGHT to interfere with our rights as Americans. And Obama has NO RIGHT to give our rights away.

Oh ... and gun companies have rights too. They have a right to be in business. They have a right to supply us with our fire arms. They have a right to make products that we want ... products that offer us self protection. They have a right to make a profit as well.



buster2010
everyone knows how the GOP wets its pants when someone wants to hold companies accountable for their actions.

Gun manufacturing companies don't shoot innocent people.
They aren't 'accountable' for the insanity of a few shooters.
Crazy people go steal guns and do the shooting up ....or inner city gang banger types ...
Gun companies responsibly provide a product that MILLIONS of Americans want/need.


This treaty will change NO LAWS here in the states this is only for international sales by companies. And companies are not people you can buy and sell companies unless you want to bring back slavery you can't do that with people.


A treaty is directly effecting US gun manufacturers business, If we are so concerned about treating the international community fairly and doing whats right on the international stage why don't we talk Trade tariffs.

You know something that could have a direct benefit for the us, instead of more things that go directing to our own detriment...

Its an agenda pure and simple, there are far more important imbalances with international trade than gun export.

IF the UN gave a crap about the world they would address the tariffs and policies that cause a massive imbalance in manufacturing and cause nations like the US to rape other countries via that imbalance.

Yet thats not what they are doing is it? they are focusing on guns, because just like US politics, international politics is not about helping the people, its about doing something that makes headlines.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

benrl

buster2010

FlyersFan

Cabin
They are not fighting for your rights, but the rights of gun companies.

That IS fighting for our rights. We have a right to buy the product that the gun companies put out. We have a right to self defense. We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to go target shooting or gun collecting. The U.N. has NO RIGHT to interfere with our rights as Americans. And Obama has NO RIGHT to give our rights away.

Oh ... and gun companies have rights too. They have a right to be in business. They have a right to supply us with our fire arms. They have a right to make products that we want ... products that offer us self protection. They have a right to make a profit as well.



buster2010
everyone knows how the GOP wets its pants when someone wants to hold companies accountable for their actions.

Gun manufacturing companies don't shoot innocent people.
They aren't 'accountable' for the insanity of a few shooters.
Crazy people go steal guns and do the shooting up ....or inner city gang banger types ...
Gun companies responsibly provide a product that MILLIONS of Americans want/need.


This treaty will change NO LAWS here in the states this is only for international sales by companies. And companies are not people you can buy and sell companies unless you want to bring back slavery you can't do that with people.


A treaty is directly effecting US gun manufacturers business, If we are so concerned about treating the international community fairly and doing whats right on the international stage why don't we talk Trade tariffs.

You know something that could have a direct benefit for the us, instead of more things that go directing to our own detriment...

Its an agenda pure and simple, there are far more important imbalances with international trade than gun export.

IF the UN gave a crap about the world they would address the tariffs and policies that cause a massive imbalance in manufacturing and cause nations like the US to rape other countries via that imbalance.

Yet thats not what they are doing is it? they are focusing on guns, because just like US politics, international politics is not about helping the people, its about doing something that makes headlines.


The idea behind this treaty is to track weapon sales to nations that are using those weapons to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. If a nation isn't breaking these laws then the treaty would have no affect on the sales to those nations.

Would you want a company here in the states selling weapons to nations that are killing our people? I wouldn't and I don't care how many jobs it costs. How many people at these companies would quit their jobs if they found out who the weapons were going to?



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

buster2010

benrl

buster2010

FlyersFan

Cabin
They are not fighting for your rights, but the rights of gun companies.

That IS fighting for our rights. We have a right to buy the product that the gun companies put out. We have a right to self defense. We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to go target shooting or gun collecting. The U.N. has NO RIGHT to interfere with our rights as Americans. And Obama has NO RIGHT to give our rights away.

Oh ... and gun companies have rights too. They have a right to be in business. They have a right to supply us with our fire arms. They have a right to make products that we want ... products that offer us self protection. They have a right to make a profit as well.



buster2010
everyone knows how the GOP wets its pants when someone wants to hold companies accountable for their actions.

Gun manufacturing companies don't shoot innocent people.
They aren't 'accountable' for the insanity of a few shooters.
Crazy people go steal guns and do the shooting up ....or inner city gang banger types ...
Gun companies responsibly provide a product that MILLIONS of Americans want/need.


This treaty will change NO LAWS here in the states this is only for international sales by companies. And companies are not people you can buy and sell companies unless you want to bring back slavery you can't do that with people.


A treaty is directly effecting US gun manufacturers business, If we are so concerned about treating the international community fairly and doing whats right on the international stage why don't we talk Trade tariffs.

You know something that could have a direct benefit for the us, instead of more things that go directing to our own detriment...

Its an agenda pure and simple, there are far more important imbalances with international trade than gun export.

IF the UN gave a crap about the world they would address the tariffs and policies that cause a massive imbalance in manufacturing and cause nations like the US to rape other countries via that imbalance.

Yet thats not what they are doing is it? they are focusing on guns, because just like US politics, international politics is not about helping the people, its about doing something that makes headlines.


The idea behind this treaty is to track weapon sales to nations that are using those weapons to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. If a nation isn't breaking these laws then the treaty would have no affect on the sales to those nations.

Would you want a company here in the states selling weapons to nations that are killing our people? I wouldn't and I don't care how many jobs it costs. How many people at these companies would quit their jobs if they found out who the weapons were going to?


well that would raise a question...

Do I think its our duty to have troops all over the world facing such danger? NO.

DO I think the US limiting exports will have an effect? NO (someone will fill the gap)

DO I think its the height of hypocrisy for the Obama admin and its fast and the furious buddies to be upset about arm sales?

YES.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I have never understood why anybody thinks this treaty has anything to do with gun owners in the US. It does not. Now if you own a weapons company that has been selling arms to a nation like Sudan known for the use of child soldiers you might find that it will be harder to do so without getting caught. Notice the countries that have problems with the treaty Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran. Does anybody think they have a problem with the treaty because they are protecting gun owner rights in their country? No of course not because they do not have any rights in their countries. They have a problem with it because they like to sell weapons to people like the Taliban or LRA. I am pretty sure that is company we do not want to be in.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Well, guns at wrong hands is definetely an issue to be dealt with. Trade tariffs would do nothing, as most arms dealers being the middleman simply rise the costs based on tariffs and still the guns might even legally end up in North Korea or some terrorist group in Africa or Middle East.

This treaty simply does ban certain legal ways of selling guns to certain groups and countries. To ensure it the whole transfer procedure is made more secure. Every firearm leaving some country has to be tracked specifically where it ends up at, the standards for shipment itself are made higher (more secure). I doubt there will not be any loopholes left, although it is very likely black market prices in certain regions will skyrocket, as getting the firearms already there is much more risky.

It will not affect any American gun rights, no local gun laws are changed, although some companies might increase their prices, whether because of higher cost of transfering or simply losing a target group. At least we might find out which of the companies were supplying both sides - their own nation and non-allied nations/groups for maximising their profits without caring what the buyers from North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Cuba or some other similar nation will do with the guns after getting hold of these.
edit on 28-10-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)







 
18

log in

join