isn't this the same list as posted when this all came up before? names look really familiar.
it looks familiar because someone just copied and pasted an email without verifying a damn thing. The senate did not hold a vote over the treaty this weekend.
However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents.I didn't hear anything about the senate considering ratification of the UN farce of a treaty. Those "traitors" listed are the ones who would support ratification but it hasn't come to a vote yet. I doubt, even if it did, it would even remotely come close to ratification.
Here's another copy-n-paste, my friend...it looks familiar because someone just copied and pasted an email without verifying a damn thing. The senate did not hold a vote over the treaty this weekend.
John (never met a Purple Heart he did not want) Kerry our bumbling fumbling Sec of State just signed the UN Small Arms Treaty about 10 days ago or less. It is expected that Obama will also sign it. When he does then will be interesting, EO? Who knows. As for the Senate ratifying it, YES they can and in fact we are only about 6 seats away from it.Here's another copy-n-paste, my friend...
However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents.
Read more at snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
They can, but it's unlikely. Consider this:As for the Senate ratifying it, YES they can and in fact we are only about 6 seats away from it.
Agenda 21 which this is Chap 21 is very ambiguous, in fact any passing review of A 21 leads one to the conclusion that it means what ever the reader (or in this case, the IMPLEMENTER) wants it to mean.They can, but it's unlikely. Consider this:
I consider the arms treaty to be something to be monitored but, compared to other threats to our rights, pretty much a low-level distraction.
- Some serious domestic political pressure is being applied against it.
- The actual language is so watered-down and ambiguous, it might not mean anything important to us even if it were ratified.
- It's not a priority; things like this typically languish for years.
- Several major players (Russia and China, for example) have already said they would NOT sign it, putting the U.S. at a potential commercial disadvantage in sales of heavy weapons if we do ratify it.
- As a result, not too many senators are anxious for an opportunity to simultaneously piss off both the gun owners and the big, military arms dealers (who pour lots of money into their campaigns) back in their home districts.
We're on the same page. We both know that by leaving the language ambiguous, the treaty means nothing now but could be re-interpreted in a draconian fashion in the future. We both realize that's the goal.
However, I must give props to the U.S. negotiators under Bush who managed to get much of the directly harmful language stripped. For example, Article 14 that covers Enforcement has been pared down to a single sentence that says nothing, really. It only says that each party should take "appropriate measures" to create law and regulation to enforce the treaty. That one critical sentence is worded so that even if some future administration tries to run with the treaty, we'll be able to stall and push back on the meaning of "appropriate measures" for, quite literally, decades.
Of course I say "No!" to the treaty. However, on my list of things to worry about, it's buried somewhere in the second hundred pages.