de rigueur on September 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM
Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News — despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
Hill60 on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM
They will make their actions quite clear if they quietly adopt procedures, policies, and actions that mimic the treaty in any way.
Obama knows you just do something and then Congress huffs and puffs and then quickly does its best to ignore that it ever happened.
He wanted to be our President so he could submit to the UN.
Can I get an “Amen”, brothers and sisters? (you would have been well within decorum if you had dropped an F bomb in that comment)
Does Kerry get another Purple Heart for this?
Kerry is as disgusting and repulsive now as he was during the Vietnam war.
Live video: Still going
I wish he’d have hooked up with the slut Jane in his hey day. We should have deported both of them long ago…or exiled them at least.
I don’t think I have to remind anybody that these people maneuver thru regulations like a rat cruises thru a sewer…
You damn traitor.
You’ll recall that the Senate, also earlier this year, signaled their outright opposition to the United States’ joining the treaty and their disinclination to ratify the thing by the necessary two-thirds majority:
Would it put Obama and Holder in jail for illegal weapon trafficking?
Kerry’s signature has no bearing on the obligation of the the US except insofar as the President approves of it being signed because he has no authority to to sign something unless the President approve of it being signed in the President’s name.
An anonymous source has told PPSIMMONS News and Ministry that he has called the office of Senator Jim Inhofe who has confirmed that he will be filing charges of treason against John Kerry if he signs the United Nations Arms Treaty on Wednesday this week.
Hill60 on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM
Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM
Curious stance to take given the Obama administrations has been caught smuggling arms to terrorists and drug cartels on several occasions.
What’s Kerry got to do with this except that he is the Secretary of State? Did you expect him to resign rather than sign it?
Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM
watertown on September 24, 2013 at 6:10 PM
rogerb on September 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM
What WILL happen is that the WH will issue a number of EO’s pursuant tot he treaty…Congress can or canNOT accede to those EO’s. We’ll see how that goes.
I don’t see how the US has any obligation to enforce this treaty. Sure.. Obama may try but even if the congress does nothing.. any future President at any time can simply state… “That treaty was signed illegally. We have laws for treaties. The law wasn’t followed. It’s worthless. Sorry about that.”
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
albill on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM
They will make their actions quite clear if they quietly adopt procedures, policies, and actions that mimic the treaty in any way.
Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM
The treaty will never be approved by the Senate, so it will never be legally binding on the U.S. Someone has to sign it in order to submit it to the Senate– although when Clinton signed the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child treaty in 1995, he never bothered to submit it and it has gone nowhere– but in this case Kerry’s signature will be worth about as much as the one on his huntin’ license.
Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM
The White House can do whatever it pleases since Congress won’t stand up to them. So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.
What an embarrassment to humanity the horse’s azz is.
The president might be able to conduct some foreign affairs in a manner that abides the treaty but there would probably be some limits, but he could do the same without there being a treaty.
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM
AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
What did we expect from a cut n run traitor like our winter “soldier”?
*checks calendar*
So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.
You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.
Karmashock on September 24, 2013 at 8:37 PM
All Hail the Messiah
While all the above comments are correct that this treaty lacks the force of law, I’d still advise monitoring the activities of the Commerce Dept., the State Dept. and DoJ.
Meaningless other than one more submission of how much this administration hates this country and its laws.
John Kerry is a vile human being, and a perfect representative of the democrat party and progressivism overall.
I think it’s closer to this:
Guess we dodged a bullet there.
communicating flexibility to vladimir
Akzed on September 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM
A State official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights.
KOOLAID2 on September 24, 2013 at 6:50 PM
AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
So what consequences would there be if an American President decided to run guns to drug cartels in Mexico? Or maybe that same American President decides to secretly arm Syrian rebels via Libya? What sort of actions would the UN take against an illegal arms dealer like that?
DaveDief on September 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM
no way in heck that this treaty could ever be abused to squash individual rights or back the United States into a corner on foreign-policy strategy
Don L on September 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM
M240H on September 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM
pat on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM
The Senate won’t ratify the UN’s arms control treaty, but John Kerry is going to sign it anyway « Hot Air
Go to hell Kerry.
Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM
He may sign it.. but he clearly has no authority to do so nor can he legally do so. He can sign it 50 ways to Sunday.. draw scribbles on it, kiss it and make love to it.. but it is meaningless.
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
PatriotGal2257 on September 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM
How we long for the days of Hillary as Secretary of State….. Ok, not really. Indeed, the only way Obama could’ve picked worse than the 2 Secretaries he’s had is if he’d named himself or Biden to the post.
JFKY on September 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM
dmann on September 24, 2013 at 6:56 PM
cmsinaz on September 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM
I have been waiting patiently now for a few decades to pi** on Jane Fonda’s grave. John Kerry has now made the list … and thinking about it, I just might bring a six-pack of beer to his.
I would be less embarrassed if Charles Manson had the role.
Subscribe in a reader
Logged in as . Log out »
Let’s see, this administration prostrates itself to dictators but treats its fellow Americans who value their Constitutional rights as political prisoners. I guess Congress has bargained to overlook all of this as long as they got their treasured Obamacare exemption. are not called RACISTS!
HiJack on September 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM
You damn traitor.
As AP has pointed out, the Senate has already told Obama what it will do with his treaty.
de rigueur on September 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM
Pun intended.
faraway on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said. …
Senator Jim Inhofe to file TREASON charges against John Kerry
Go to hell Kerry.
Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM
Another Red Line?
AZCoyote on September 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Go ahead and sign it, John.
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM
This alerts both the nations involved, alerts the UN and alerts the American people.
If congress doesn’t stand up for the law.. then who will?
faraway on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
Akzed on September 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM
NO PEOPLE, it’s NOT “blatantly unconstitutional.” The POTUS is the CHIEF DIPLOMAT, he or his/her designee can sign ANYTHING, it’s the Senate’s job to ratify or not a signed treaty.
DanMan on September 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM
The Senate won’t ratify the UN’s arms control treaty, but John Kerry is going to sign it anyway
And after you’ve signed it, use it to wipe your azz the next time you take a dump, because that’s the only useful thing that piece of paper will ever accomplish.
They really don’t… need no stinkin Constitution, …………let alone uphold one.
dentarthurdent on September 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM
The United Nations and their notoriously poor record at accomplishing much of anything besides mass corruption and the legitimization of dictators still isn’t sure what the impact of the treaty will be and how stringently it will be implemented? Man, that inspires some major confidence. Yeah, let’s sign that.
AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
I just signed a petition at a gun show this weekend, supposedly to go to Rand Paul to fight this.
Obama administration officials already signaled that they have every intention of ignoring the wishes and demands of the legislature on this one earlier this year, but the now infamous United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty is finally just about finished after years of political meandering and John Kerry is all set to put his pen to paper. Via Fox News:
Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM
Congrats! He is all yours!
Congressional leaders need to alert the UN and other signers of the treaty that Kerry acted illegally. They should state firmly that the US has not ratified this treaty and until it does the US is not a part of it.. whether Kerry puts his signature on it or not.
As often as our own government abuses individual rights I would suspect they would be more than willing to abuse our gun rights in the name of a treaty we haven’t even approved.
You are a Jerk!
t8stlikchkn on September 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM
DaveDief on September 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM
Can we please get rid of these asinine Democrats? Please?
Not to worry, Roberts will vote that Kerry’s signature makes it legal anyways….he’ll mumble something about penumbra for international taxes and leave quickly
turfmann on September 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM
Horse Head signed it because it’s safe for him to do so, he knows that not only will Congress not go along with it but he’s in an unelected position and can’t get unelected.
ThePrez on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Go to hell Kerry.
chemman on September 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM
Chris of Rights on September 25, 2013 at 8:42 AM
I’m embarrassed to have this put-on accent speaking wonder turd in such a prominent role for my nation, embarrassed, in fact I would be less embarrassed if Charles Manson had the role.
smoothsailing on September 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Not really. It’s not a treaty to which we are party until it is ratified by the Senate, which basically means any Treaty with the United States needs 68 ‘signatures’.
What could go wrong!
Little Sisters of the Poor file lawsuit to stop HHS from forcing them to fund contraception coverage
If congress lets them.
Oh yeaeth! our Winter Soldier on the world stage. He fits right in with Obama’s cabinet of idjits.
Lerner negotiating with Oversight for immunity?
While all the above comments are correct that this treaty lacks the force of law, I’d still advise monitoring the activities of the Commerce Dept., the State Dept. and DoJ.
Obama Administration doing something blatantly unconstitutional?
But let that not stop the Obama administration in going right along with globalist bureaucrats insisting that there is no way in heck that this treaty could ever be abused to squash individual rights or back the United States into a corner on foreign-policy strategy — it’s just to help deter terrorism and violence, guys, really!
You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.
Charley don’t drone.
Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?
Hey, John, even with your Leftist friends, this won’t make up for having your butt kicked by W!
…this azzhole is OUR secretary of state!
Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment. …
Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?
Dusty on September 24, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Murphy9 on September 24, 2013 at 10:59 PM
That’s why I would do if I were there… hold a press conference..make a public statement right away that any signing of treaties without congressional ratification is meaningless.
My question to john Kerry is, What would Jenjis Khan think of this treaty?”
I don`t even want to think of what`ll happen if they try……. Oh dear. :-/
The President or a representative can submit a signed document to the Senate, but if the Senate ignores it or fails to pass a resolution of ratification by a 2/3rds vote, then there is no treaty. Treaty ratification only takes place when instruments of ratification are exchanged between the U.S. and U.N.
Clinton signed Kyoto but never set it to the Senate for ratification.
So.. it’s illegal? It’s meaningless because he’s signing the law illegally.
Ellis on September 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM
These were all failed presidential candidates, so they deserved something. There are no other reasons (like qualifications) for them to have the positions.
So what… Bill Clinton signed Kyoto… who cares. Congress won’t ratify it. End of story.
Schadenfreude on September 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM
The most lawless administration in history.
It’s a day that ends with a ‘y’, so… yep, no surprise here.
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM
So what consequences would there be if an American President decided to run guns to drug cartels in Mexico? Or maybe that same American President decides to secretly arm Syrian rebels via Libya? What sort of actions would the UN take against an illegal arms dealer like that?
“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe said. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”
Remember, Clinton signed the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child treaty in 1995, but never submitted it to the Senate, where it would have been ignored or rejected. Obama actually promised to submit the treaty… but hasn’t. Wonder if that’s how he’ll handle this one– or submit it and see it rejected outright by Reid’s Senate. Like his budgets.
* /obligatory sarc tag
Note: your comment may take up to 30 seconds to show up on the site (longer, if it goes into moderation). Please do not resubmit.
edToolbar();var edCanvas = document.getElementById('comment');
These elites think there is no bridge too far for them. Maybe they are right.
Midas on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM
GaltBlvnAtty on September 24, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Dusty on September 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.
idiot
Did not stop ObamaCare along with many other things… why would it here?
Midas on September 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Another Drew on September 25, 2013 at 2:09 AM
© 2006-2013 Hot Air | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About | Advertise | Mobile Site
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
CPT. Charles on September 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM
“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said. …
And it only confirms to us on the Right, that the Swift-boat guys were right about you….
You damn traitor.
Exactly. Always keep your eyes on what the other hand is doing.
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
FlaMurph on September 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Let’s see, this administration prostrates itself to dictators but treats its fellow Americans who value their Constitutional rights as political prisoners. I guess Congress has bargained to overlook all of this as long as they got their treasured Obamacare exemption.
He’ll got the Nobel Peace Prize so shut up, racist. *
It’s sad, but it’s all a blatant “fairness” game from the community organizer.
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Twana on September 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Yeah.. the law is meaningless now. We’ve got a Democrat Attorney General here in PA that is refusing to uphold the law too. She’s pledged to go after guns and has refused to uphold laws she doesn’t like. They’re all doing it.
Yeah, these Marxists are doing stuff like this knowing it doesn’t really matter./s
The shrapnel he claims he took in his arse went to the wrong place, I’d say.
Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
Trackback URL
I don’t think I have to remind anybody that these people maneuver thru regulations like a rat cruises thru a sewer…
Ok, not really. Indeed, the only way Obama could’ve picked worse than the 2 Secretaries he’s had is if he’d named himself or Biden to the post.
rplat on September 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM
So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM
CPT. Charles on September 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.
Storified by assortedco082 ·
Wed, Sep 25 2013 06:36:43
de rigueur on September 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM
Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News — despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
Hill60 on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM
They will make their actions quite clear if they quietly adopt procedures, policies, and actions that mimic the treaty in any way.
Obama knows you just do something and then Congress huffs and puffs and then quickly does its best to ignore that it ever happened.
He wanted to be our President so he could submit to the UN.
Can I get an “Amen”, brothers and sisters? (you would have been well within decorum if you had dropped an F bomb in that comment)
Does Kerry get another Purple Heart for this?
Kerry is as disgusting and repulsive now as he was during the Vietnam war.
Live video: Still going
I wish he’d have hooked up with the slut Jane in his hey day. We should have deported both of them long ago…or exiled them at least.
I don’t think I have to remind anybody that these people maneuver thru regulations like a rat cruises thru a sewer…
You damn traitor.
You’ll recall that the Senate, also earlier this year, signaled their outright opposition to the United States’ joining the treaty and their disinclination to ratify the thing by the necessary two-thirds majority:
Would it put Obama and Holder in jail for illegal weapon trafficking?
Kerry’s signature has no bearing on the obligation of the the US except insofar as the President approves of it being signed because he has no authority to to sign something unless the President approve of it being signed in the President’s name.
An anonymous source has told PPSIMMONS News and Ministry that he has called the office of Senator Jim Inhofe who has confirmed that he will be filing charges of treason against John Kerry if he signs the United Nations Arms Treaty on Wednesday this week.
Hill60 on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM
Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM
Curious stance to take given the Obama administrations has been caught smuggling arms to terrorists and drug cartels on several occasions.
What’s Kerry got to do with this except that he is the Secretary of State? Did you expect him to resign rather than sign it?
Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM
watertown on September 24, 2013 at 6:10 PM
rogerb on September 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM
What WILL happen is that the WH will issue a number of EO’s pursuant tot he treaty…Congress can or canNOT accede to those EO’s. We’ll see how that goes.
I don’t see how the US has any obligation to enforce this treaty. Sure.. Obama may try but even if the congress does nothing.. any future President at any time can simply state… “That treaty was signed illegally. We have laws for treaties. The law wasn’t followed. It’s worthless. Sorry about that.”
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
albill on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM
They will make their actions quite clear if they quietly adopt procedures, policies, and actions that mimic the treaty in any way.
Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM
The treaty will never be approved by the Senate, so it will never be legally binding on the U.S. Someone has to sign it in order to submit it to the Senate– although when Clinton signed the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child treaty in 1995, he never bothered to submit it and it has gone nowhere– but in this case Kerry’s signature will be worth about as much as the one on his huntin’ license.
Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM
The White House can do whatever it pleases since Congress won’t stand up to them. So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.
What an embarrassment to humanity the horse’s azz is.
The president might be able to conduct some foreign affairs in a manner that abides the treaty but there would probably be some limits, but he could do the same without there being a treaty.
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM
AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
What did we expect from a cut n run traitor like our winter “soldier”?
*checks calendar*
So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.
You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.
Karmashock on September 24, 2013 at 8:37 PM
All Hail the Messiah
While all the above comments are correct that this treaty lacks the force of law, I’d still advise monitoring the activities of the Commerce Dept., the State Dept. and DoJ.
Meaningless other than one more submission of how much this administration hates this country and its laws.
John Kerry is a vile human being, and a perfect representative of the democrat party and progressivism overall.
I think it’s closer to this:
Guess we dodged a bullet there.
communicating flexibility to vladimir
Akzed on September 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM
A State official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights.
KOOLAID2 on September 24, 2013 at 6:50 PM
AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
So what consequences would there be if an American President decided to run guns to drug cartels in Mexico? Or maybe that same American President decides to secretly arm Syrian rebels via Libya? What sort of actions would the UN take against an illegal arms dealer like that?
DaveDief on September 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM
no way in heck that this treaty could ever be abused to squash individual rights or back the United States into a corner on foreign-policy strategy
Don L on September 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM
M240H on September 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM
pat on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM
The Senate won’t ratify the UN’s arms control treaty, but John Kerry is going to sign it anyway « Hot Air
Go to hell Kerry.
Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM
He may sign it.. but he clearly has no authority to do so nor can he legally do so. He can sign it 50 ways to Sunday.. draw scribbles on it, kiss it and make love to it.. but it is meaningless.
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
PatriotGal2257 on September 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM
How we long for the days of Hillary as Secretary of State….. Ok, not really. Indeed, the only way Obama could’ve picked worse than the 2 Secretaries he’s had is if he’d named himself or Biden to the post.
JFKY on September 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM
dmann on September 24, 2013 at 6:56 PM
cmsinaz on September 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM
I have been waiting patiently now for a few decades to pi** on Jane Fonda’s grave. John Kerry has now made the list … and thinking about it, I just might bring a six-pack of beer to his.
I would be less embarrassed if Charles Manson had the role.
Subscribe in a reader
Logged in as . Log out »
Let’s see, this administration prostrates itself to dictators but treats its fellow Americans who value their Constitutional rights as political prisoners. I guess Congress has bargained to overlook all of this as long as they got their treasured Obamacare exemption. are not called RACISTS!
HiJack on September 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM
You damn traitor.
As AP has pointed out, the Senate has already told Obama what it will do with his treaty.
de rigueur on September 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM
Pun intended.
faraway on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said. …
Senator Jim Inhofe to file TREASON charges against John Kerry
Go to hell Kerry.
Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM
Another Red Line?
AZCoyote on September 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Go ahead and sign it, John.
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM
This alerts both the nations involved, alerts the UN and alerts the American people.
If congress doesn’t stand up for the law.. then who will?
faraway on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
Akzed on September 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM
NO PEOPLE, it’s NOT “blatantly unconstitutional.” The POTUS is the CHIEF DIPLOMAT, he or his/her designee can sign ANYTHING, it’s the Senate’s job to ratify or not a signed treaty.
DanMan on September 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM
The Senate won’t ratify the UN’s arms control treaty, but John Kerry is going to sign it anyway
And after you’ve signed it, use it to wipe your azz the next time you take a dump, because that’s the only useful thing that piece of paper will ever accomplish.
They really don’t… need no stinkin Constitution, …………let alone uphold one.
dentarthurdent on September 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM
The United Nations and their notoriously poor record at accomplishing much of anything besides mass corruption and the legitimization of dictators still isn’t sure what the impact of the treaty will be and how stringently it will be implemented? Man, that inspires some major confidence. Yeah, let’s sign that.
AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM
I just signed a petition at a gun show this weekend, supposedly to go to Rand Paul to fight this.
Obama administration officials already signaled that they have every intention of ignoring the wishes and demands of the legislature on this one earlier this year, but the now infamous United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty is finally just about finished after years of political meandering and John Kerry is all set to put his pen to paper. Via Fox News:
Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM
Congrats! He is all yours!
Congressional leaders need to alert the UN and other signers of the treaty that Kerry acted illegally. They should state firmly that the US has not ratified this treaty and until it does the US is not a part of it.. whether Kerry puts his signature on it or not.
As often as our own government abuses individual rights I would suspect they would be more than willing to abuse our gun rights in the name of a treaty we haven’t even approved.
You are a Jerk!
t8stlikchkn on September 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM
DaveDief on September 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM
Can we please get rid of these asinine Democrats? Please?
Not to worry, Roberts will vote that Kerry’s signature makes it legal anyways….he’ll mumble something about penumbra for international taxes and leave quickly
turfmann on September 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM
Horse Head signed it because it’s safe for him to do so, he knows that not only will Congress not go along with it but he’s in an unelected position and can’t get unelected.
ThePrez on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Go to hell Kerry.
chemman on September 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM
Chris of Rights on September 25, 2013 at 8:42 AM
I’m embarrassed to have this put-on accent speaking wonder turd in such a prominent role for my nation, embarrassed, in fact I would be less embarrassed if Charles Manson had the role.
smoothsailing on September 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Not really. It’s not a treaty to which we are party until it is ratified by the Senate, which basically means any Treaty with the United States needs 68 ‘signatures’.
What could go wrong!
Little Sisters of the Poor file lawsuit to stop HHS from forcing them to fund contraception coverage
If congress lets them.
Oh yeaeth! our Winter Soldier on the world stage. He fits right in with Obama’s cabinet of idjits.
Lerner negotiating with Oversight for immunity?
While all the above comments are correct that this treaty lacks the force of law, I’d still advise monitoring the activities of the Commerce Dept., the State Dept. and DoJ.
Obama Administration doing something blatantly unconstitutional?
But let that not stop the Obama administration in going right along with globalist bureaucrats insisting that there is no way in heck that this treaty could ever be abused to squash individual rights or back the United States into a corner on foreign-policy strategy — it’s just to help deter terrorism and violence, guys, really!
You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.
Charley don’t drone.
Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?
Hey, John, even with your Leftist friends, this won’t make up for having your butt kicked by W!
…this azzhole is OUR secretary of state!
Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment. …
Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?
Dusty on September 24, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Murphy9 on September 24, 2013 at 10:59 PM
That’s why I would do if I were there… hold a press conference..make a public statement right away that any signing of treaties without congressional ratification is meaningless.
My question to john Kerry is, What would Jenjis Khan think of this treaty?”
I don`t even want to think of what`ll happen if they try……. Oh dear. :-/
The President or a representative can submit a signed document to the Senate, but if the Senate ignores it or fails to pass a resolution of ratification by a 2/3rds vote, then there is no treaty. Treaty ratification only takes place when instruments of ratification are exchanged between the U.S. and U.N.
Clinton signed Kyoto but never set it to the Senate for ratification.
So.. it’s illegal? It’s meaningless because he’s signing the law illegally.
Ellis on September 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM
These were all failed presidential candidates, so they deserved something. There are no other reasons (like qualifications) for them to have the positions.
So what… Bill Clinton signed Kyoto… who cares. Congress won’t ratify it. End of story.
Schadenfreude on September 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM
The most lawless administration in history.
It’s a day that ends with a ‘y’, so… yep, no surprise here.
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM
So what consequences would there be if an American President decided to run guns to drug cartels in Mexico? Or maybe that same American President decides to secretly arm Syrian rebels via Libya? What sort of actions would the UN take against an illegal arms dealer like that?
“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe said. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”
Remember, Clinton signed the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child treaty in 1995, but never submitted it to the Senate, where it would have been ignored or rejected. Obama actually promised to submit the treaty… but hasn’t. Wonder if that’s how he’ll handle this one– or submit it and see it rejected outright by Reid’s Senate. Like his budgets.
* /obligatory sarc tag
Note: your comment may take up to 30 seconds to show up on the site (longer, if it goes into moderation). Please do not resubmit.
edToolbar();var edCanvas = document.getElementById('comment');
These elites think there is no bridge too far for them. Maybe they are right.
Midas on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM
GaltBlvnAtty on September 24, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Dusty on September 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.
idiot
Did not stop ObamaCare along with many other things… why would it here?
Midas on September 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Another Drew on September 25, 2013 at 2:09 AM
© 2006-2013 Hot Air | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About | Advertise | Mobile Site
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
CPT. Charles on September 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM
“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said. …
And it only confirms to us on the Right, that the Swift-boat guys were right about you….
You damn traitor.
Exactly. Always keep your eyes on what the other hand is doing.
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
FlaMurph on September 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Let’s see, this administration prostrates itself to dictators but treats its fellow Americans who value their Constitutional rights as political prisoners. I guess Congress has bargained to overlook all of this as long as they got their treasured Obamacare exemption.
He’ll got the Nobel Peace Prize so shut up, racist. *
It’s sad, but it’s all a blatant “fairness” game from the community organizer.
steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Twana on September 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Yeah.. the law is meaningless now. We’ve got a Democrat Attorney General here in PA that is refusing to uphold the law too. She’s pledged to go after guns and has refused to uphold laws she doesn’t like. They’re all doing it.
Yeah, these Marxists are doing stuff like this knowing it doesn’t really matter./s
The shrapnel he claims he took in his arse went to the wrong place, I’d say.
Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?
Trackback URL
I don’t think I have to remind anybody that these people maneuver thru regulations like a rat cruises thru a sewer…
Ok, not really. Indeed, the only way Obama could’ve picked worse than the 2 Secretaries he’s had is if he’d named himself or Biden to the post.
rplat on September 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM
So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.
JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM
CPT. Charles on September 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.