By J. Mark Foreman
www.tcunation.com
May 19, 2010

While everyone was watching the oil spill, Hillary Clinton SIGNED the
U.N. Small Arms Treaty, potentially leading to an effective ban on all
privately held semi-automatic weapons in America. By way of treaty,
our 2nd Amendment is in danger, meaning that the normal legislative
process is consequently circumvented. I need to look deeper into the
exact process by which international treaties are secured, but I have
it on good authority that such treaties lawfully circumvent our
Constitution and still must be passed by the Democrats in the Senate -
but there will be little debate and even less media coverage (except, I
pray at LEAST on Fox News). This treaty represents the start of a
slippery slope toward mandatory private gun registration which can lead
to an attempt at confiscation. Give up your gun or face prison...
...That is certainly NOT what our founding fathers intended and it is
our duty as a vigilant nation to stop this before it gets out of hand.
Make no mistake, this treaty is not about illegal weapons, it's about
making them illegal. Here is the article - judge for yourself:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

(Reuters) - The
United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back
launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks
operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former
President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a
treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating
forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates
under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty
that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,"
Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms
sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the
treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent
irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam
International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of
negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,"
said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import,
export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass
onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed
under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in
writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States
accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms
transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of
"dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the
ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory
meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in
2012.

ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

EDITORS NOTE: GET YOUR SAVINGS IN GOLD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! THE DOLLAR IS GOING TO COLLAPSE AND YOUR MONEY WILL BE USELESS! DON'T WAIT! WE RECOMMEND SWISS AMERICA (LINK BELOW) AS WE HAVE BOUGHT GOLD FROM THEM IN THE PAST. THEY ARE RELIABLE AND TRUST WORTHY!


				*WHILE WE'RE ALL WATCHING THE GULF: HILLARY SIGNS UN SMALL ARMS TREATY*



	Home \| About Us \| Contact and Links \| Get Educated \| Upcoming Events \| Link to Us \| Downloads \| Archives


		WHILE WE'RE ALL WATCHING THE GULF: HILLARY SIGNS UN SMALL ARMS TREATY



		Share By J. Mark Foreman www.tcunation.com May 19, 2010 While everyone was watching the oil spill, Hillary Clinton SIGNED the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, potentially leading to an effective ban on all privately held semi-automatic weapons in America. By way of treaty, our 2nd Amendment is in danger, meaning that the normal legislative process is consequently circumvented. I need to look deeper into the exact process by which international treaties are secured, but I have it on good authority that such treaties lawfully circumvent our Constitution and still must be passed by the Democrats in the Senate - but there will be little debate and even less media coverage (except, I pray at LEAST on Fox News). This treaty represents the start of a slippery slope toward mandatory private gun registration which can lead to an attempt at confiscation. Give up your gun or face prison... ...That is certainly NOT what our founding fathers intended and it is our duty as a vigilant nation to stop this before it gets out of hand. Make no mistake, this treaty is not about illegal weapons, it's about making them illegal. Here is the article - judge for yourself: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making." "Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement. While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous. "The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement. However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal." "Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier. The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons. Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market. Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance. The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals. Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue. The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people. The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty. A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012. ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE EDITORS NOTE: GET YOUR SAVINGS IN GOLD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! THE DOLLAR IS GOING TO COLLAPSE AND YOUR MONEY WILL BE USELESS! DON'T WAIT! WE RECOMMEND SWISS AMERICA (LINK BELOW) AS WE HAVE BOUGHT GOLD FROM THEM IN THE PAST. THEY ARE RELIABLE AND TRUST WORTHY!



		Powered by Register.com