Friday, May 21, 2010

"The Treaty is coming! The Treaty is coming!" SFW? An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton.

Folks,

I continue to get breathless emails about the "imminent danger" of the small arms non-proliferation treaty. Here is one of the latest news articles about that. I reproduce the entire article below, and then, my response.

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

Arshad Mohammed, Reuters

WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT

WASHINGTON (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.


An Open Letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Madame Secretary,

I note with interest your reversal of the Bush Administration's opposition to participating in the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty. There are many firearms owners in this country who believe that this is an Obama Administration effort to backdoor firearms restrictions by means of an international treaty. As you know, this attitude has also been adopted by the National Rifle Association, which sends out millions of fund-raising appeals every mass mailing and uses it as an excuse for easily frightened people to send them more money -- as if the NRA has any intention of taking a principled stand on anything.

I disagree with these apprehensions of your motives. In fact, I embrace your committing the United States to this arms control regime and sincerely hope that you attempt apply it to firearms availability in this country.

For if you do, you and your regime will be swept out of power at the point of the muzzles of millions of rifles in the hands of men and women who will have finally had enough of your tyrannies, large and small.

Please, I ask you, commit this country to a global agenda of gun control. The sooner you do, the sooner you and all your kind will be swept into the dustbin of history.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126

PS: Please thank your nominal husband for me for his courtesy in condemning the Three Percenters in his recent speech and subsequent interviews. To be denounced by a serial perjurer carries particular significance.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reading through. . .l .
reading through . . . .
reading through . . . .

W-T-F!! . . (commit this country)

oh shit!! . (sweep into the dustbin of history at the point of a rifle)

LOL!!

Thanks, Mike. You just made my week.
You sure know how to make a point - short, sharp and swift!

B Woodman
III-per

wv: "gaunca" The new version of Guernica?

Anonymous said...

"NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!"

Doc Enigma said...

+1!

Taylor H said...

Only time will tell.

Anonymous said...

"The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15969

Anonymous said...

Bwahahahaha! Nobody's kick's Libatard ass like you, Mike. Dayum.

Toaster 802 said...

Out freakin' standing!

Dakota said...

I like it that you have hit them right between the eyes Mike.

I concur.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mike,
Paragraph six is total Bravo Sierra.

"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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

China Followed by Russia are the #1 and #2 arms exports.
It took me less than one(1) minute to find this information.
Do you think we can get Amnesty International and Oxfam International to issue a retraction?
I won't hold my breath.
TheSwimmer

dwayne chandler said...

Amen.

Anonymous said...

Nasty traitors. Awesome letter!

-S
III

J. Croft said...

Firearms development has been retarded by government regulation. I look forward to a full ban so that there's no losing in developing and making arms and ammunition...

The ammunition production will be the sticking point. Any ammunition plant that can make rounds of acceptable consistency is both big and requires lots of resources to achieve that consistency.

Perhaps a new means can be found to send cupronickel jacketed slugs past 2500fps?

AlphaWolf(Mark Mc) said...

Anyone else note the date on that Reuters article? Oct 14th , 2009?

MikeH. said...

Mike,

You and I both know that any attempt to enact or enforce this treaty would be the spark to an armed war that the regime will loose. They know it too.

I could be wrong; I think they are already setting up the "crisis" that will have many of us begging for them to take our firearms... food for guns / ammo. Of course, I wouldn't doubt that might include precious metals and gem stones as well.

Cut off the supply and within six months time, those who hadn't prepped for a seriously long siege will be handing over everything they have, or can put their hands on, for a single serving of week old roadkill.

MikeH.
III

Anonymous said...

If I'm not mistaken, any treaty has to be ratified by congress.

Dennis308 said...

That´s the way to tell Her Mike. She´ll be so pissed when she gets home she´ll probably Bitch slap ol´Billy right down to the floor.
The lil´Bitch,(not her..but Billy)

Dennis
1oo%
III
Texas

Big Al said...

"you attempt apply"

... sorry, I think you missed "to" in your sentance structure.

'Dustbin'... I love it! keep up the good work!

Big Al

DevilDog said...

Oohrah, well put Mike. I would love to see the expression on her face.

Devildog
III

PioneerPreppy said...

Yes any treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate but this regime has tried various ways to circumvent decorum before. Obama would more than likely try to get it mandated by executive order or something.

MY only real concern is will it truly spark enough blowback to make a difference if they say go after the same things anti-gun Clinton the male did back in the 90's?

I do hope your right about the reaction Mike.

Anonymous said...

First, no treaty applies to the United States, even with the signature of POTUS, until 2/3 (*not* a simple majority) of the U.S. Senate votes to affirm.

This reminds me of the Kyoto Protocols, the most sweeping anti-Global Warming treaty to ever be considered, which was voted down by Al Gore.

That was first.

Second? "Nominal husband!" OMG, Mike, you're KILLING ME!

Anonymous said...

To repeat anon...

The president and the senate can make all the treaties they want ... but if it is in direct or indirect conflict with the constitution ... it is null and void just as all laws are null and void when they are in conflict with the constitution.

Now, I realize that TPTB do not care. But then again, most "Americans" do not care either. Because ... well ... here we are.

Imagine where we will be.

Anonymous said...

Mike - how do you respond if local cops escort an unruly mob of 500 union thugs onto your front porch, then give them cover for criminal trespass and mischief-making? Would that raise any concerns about equal protection or rule of law?

Could you pick out the fed monitors in the shadows?

What happens if they start lighting fires?

http://bigjournalism.com/acary/2010/05/21/d-c-metro-police-escorted-seiu-protesters-to-greg-baers-home/

My guess is the thugs in question were all on the taxpayer clock, charging time-and-half (plus pension and benefits) against some Obama-money account.

Dedicated_Dad said...

One more time for those talking about "ratification" or "2/3 majority"...

What The Constitution actually says is "... Two-thirds of the Senators *PRESENT*..."

Surely you can see how THIS will work!

Note I said "will" -- not "could".

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

DD

Happy D said...

(As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
How long has that been up there.

Samuel Adams said...

Well said, Mike

M Girard III

Anonymous said...

There is an Org of American States agreement on arms that is of concern and it will likely be acted on before this pile of shit.

Robert L Stevenson said...

I wonder if Paul Helmke even knows of the "global arms transfer deals loophole"?

Anonymous said...

Gentleman, I can excuse the younger guys but, all the old timers should know Mike is a RAT. He blathers out comments in the hope of inciting a few of the more eager beaver citizens to say or do something illegal, passes such intel to his contact and collects his meager reward. Be wise new people. Those that do, DO. Those that make outrageous statements, statements that guarantee a visit from FBI yet nothing happens, are I N F O R M A N T S. Be wise patriots.