My previous two posts which depict Senator Bob Corker in a positive light and endorse him for re-election have produced some interesting responses.
The comments on them have been pithy and insightful, whiny and demeaning, incorrect and uninformed and off-topic and irrelevant. This post on the Senator’s position on the UN Small Arms Treaty deals with the incorrect and uninformed position that Senator Corker has not and will not make known his position on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, also known as the UN Small Arms Treaty. After years in the pipeline, that treaty is currently before the UN for final votes from member nations.
There are a host of comments on the two previous posts suggesting that Senator Corker has not made his views on this particular treaty known. Uninformed individuals, many of whom appear to be more interested in smearing Senator Corker than truth, are spreading this incorrect information via email, FaceBook, blog comments and various lists.
The truth of the matter is that Senator Corker signed on to a letter opposing the Treaty proposed by Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) and signed by 43 other US Senators in JULY OF 2011!
Along with being reported and promoted by the Senators involved, it was reported, among other outlets, by the Heritage Foundation, which wrote:
The letter lays out five concerns, ranging from the U.N.’s hostility to private firearms ownership to the nature of the consensus-based negotiating procedure to the underlying philosophy of the treaty, which, as the signatories note “places the burden of controlling crime and terrorism on law-abiding Americans, instead of where it belongs: on the culpable member states of the United Nations who have failed to take the necessary steps to block trafficking that is already illegal under existing laws and agreements.”
The question must be asked; how is it possible that people making unflattering statements about Senator Corker’s character, integrity, patriotism and commitment to a strong America and the Constitution which gave birth to her do not know this? Senator Corker has been clearly on the record for a year and yet his detractors never bother to take the time to do the bare minimum research needed to get their facts straight before maligning a man without cause and worse, spreading the misinformation well beyond themselves to people and places to whom they cannot get a correction even if they were inclined to do so.
Over and over again, they are proven wrong whether the topic is ObamaCare, the UN Small Arms Treaty and so many other things. Yet they will not stop, they will not be corrected, they will not correct themselves or retract any of their bad information.
If this was being done to them, they would be howling like a scalded dog. I cannot find a reason for them not to behave with integrity and honesty beyond the explanation provided by Occam’s famous razor: to wit, they want to damage Senator Corker and they don’t really care about the means they employ to do so.
Disagreement is one thing. Many folks have written passionately about why they don’t like specific votes the Senator has cast over the last five and a half years. I have no problem with that and count myself among those who do not agree with every position the Senator has championed. But in the midst of disagreement, I expect basic honesty and a modicum of effort to make sure what one is saying is actually true. For these folks, it’s easier to just hit ‘Forward’ on an inflammatory and factually incorrect email because it serves their purpose and validates their opinion rather than because they have looked into it and found it to be true.
And these are activists who claim followers and readers and devotees; people who claim to be informed and who are looked to for good information. It seems they are doing the voters of Tennessee a disservice.
The claim is that Senator Corker is in thrall to special interest groups, lobbyists and others. I have to ask what ideology are these activists committed to which ignores facts, reports error as truth and refuses to correct the errors when they are pointed out?
If they cannot be bothered to do basic fact checking on information, what confidence should I have in other things that they allege – about the Senator or anything else?
UPDATE: Senator Corker on UN Small Arms Treaty 2012, Thanks, Senator!! @ Blue Collar Muse
#1 by Sally Absher on 07/16/2012 - 23:04
Thank you for the clarification Ken. I was not aware that there was a letter opposing the SAT. However, when I called Senator Corker’s D.C. Office to inquire as to the Senator’s opinion on this treaty, I was told that he had NOT MADE UP HIS MIND, that he was waiting to SEE THE FINAL AGREEMENT before he issued a statement. And he was certainly NOT one of the 34 conservatives who signed senator Imhofe’s letter opposing the Law of the Sea treaty (LOST) which is what some of those who commented about a letter may have been thinking of. The UN is currently trying to force at least 4 different treaties down the senate’s throat. I heard Dick Morris say today that due to the Versailles treaty, if Hiliary or Omama sign the Small Arms Treaty, whether or not it is ever voted on by the senate, it will become enforceable in the U.S. This is tyranny!
#2 by Eric Holcombe on 07/17/2012 - 13:36
So, some yet unnamed bloggers/forwarders of emails/”they” are incorrect on some of Bob’s apparent multiple positions or lack thereof on this U.N. Small Arms treaty.
I’ve looked at Bob’s website. No U.N. treaties are listed under his “Issues – Policy Points”. A search for “U.N. small arms treaty” yields nothing. Same for “Law of the Sea” and “Arms Trade” treaties.
If this issue is really important – important enough that you are having to write posts defending a misrepresentation of a supposed position Bob has here, wouldn’t it be MUCH simpler for Bob to declare that position on his web site (after all, what is it for?)? We have a claim from at least one constituent that he hasn’t made up his mind and is waiting on the final version – which would appear consistent with his website (and Bob’s robo-email character that I’ve experienced), that is, no opinion.
Since this treaty really can have no effect on these united states without an(other) infringement of the 2nd Amendment, I can’t see that it has any chance of being “effective” here in the globalist sense without being unconstitutional. However, I have a couple of questions:
1) Regardless of the wording of the treaty, if there is any modicum of unconstitutionality, shouldn’t Bob refuse it? That seems to be the intent of the letter you referenced.
2) If it WAS constitutional, but the majority of Tennesseans do not want this treaty regardless, should Bob represent these constituents by voting “no” or should he “make up his own mind” about it?
3) (assuming we believe the whole War on Terror thing and since we are already waging an economic war with Iran)
Shouldn’t Bob consider the U.N. actions in appointing Iran as a player on the Arms Trade Treaty as “poor judgment” and maybe, just maybe the U.N. are idiots and we shouldn’t even consider the Small Arms Treaty coming from such an irresponsible body?
#3 by David Nance on 07/17/2012 - 15:44
Among many other bad votes Bob Corker voted to raise the debt ceiling another 2.4 trillion dollars putting each of my children and grandchildren an additional $15,384.62 further in debt. (I’ll give you the math if you like) I will never again under any circumstances vote for any politician who to secure their political position will steal from my children’s future to appease the voter’s desire for free money from government. These men are moral degenerates. Now he condemns our debt as if he had nothing to do with it.
Cash for Clunkers took money from our children’s future to bribe the American people to destroy assets. This was to not only bailout the auto companies but the UAW as well. Rewarding failure is what Corker has excelled in. Now Bob Corker talks about how he supports free markets.
I could go on and on but I don’t have time. Ken, how you can think you are a conservative and endorse Bob Corker is a puzzle to me. I think you have been hood winked by a slick talker. Pay no attention to what they say Ken, it’s worthless. Watch what they do.
#4 by EvaGirl on 07/17/2012 - 17:55
So why didn’t he just say so? If you live in the Chattanooga area then you should be aware of say Corker’s records when he was major all going missing. Then there the records of when he was director of finance for Gov. Sundquist those records also went missing. One set of records gone missing maybe, but two sets, and years apart, please you cannot be that naive. What about selling wetlands to Walmart? Either you have not done your homework, or you are OK with this history. Oh I know, he was like the Clintons and Whitewater, he had a blind trust. Yeah right. You can vote for and encourage others to do so but most Tea Party members I know would most certainly not do so.
#5 by Rick on 07/18/2012 - 15:05
Corker can’t seem to make up his mind on the Arms Trade Treaty, we know that he did vote for the nuclear arms treaty, which reduced our strategic nuclear weapons, but did nothing to reduce Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons. We know that he voted to increase the deficit, and that he supported the do nothing Budget Super committee. I think it’s time to replace him with a Tea Party conservative.
#6 by Blue Collar Muse on 07/18/2012 - 16:42
Rick, Eric, David and anyone else -
I’m not sure why I end up doing all of your homework for you.
I told you that Corker was clearly opposed to the Small Arms Treaty and has been for a year – you respond that unnamed sources at an unidentified office says he has not – although you allow that maybe he wasn’t talking about the Small Arms Treaty but was talking about LOST instead …
I gave you links to the letter clearly signed by Corker as evidence that his position is and has been clear for a year – you complain that it’s not up at his site and that somehow his clear and consistent stance should not be believed because he has not made a big deal out of it …
Well, it is up at his site. It has been since July of last year. You can see it by clicking on the link. In what I take to be a humble approach, he is not trumpeting “Look at me! Look at what I did!” but rather just references the Heritage blog post which clearly shows his stance.
It seems increasingly likely that folks will simply not allow that Bob Corker can do ANYTHING right or well. That is not principled activism. That is blind, reflexive commitment to the party line regardless. I thought we Conservatives were independent enough to at least be fair.
#7 by Mike on 07/22/2012 - 08:30
If Sen. Corker is so opposed to it why is he said to have an “open mind” about it in the NY Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/world/americas/law-of-the-sea-treaty-is-found-on-capitol-hill-again.html
Corker is one cagie, and as Mark Levin pointed out COWARDLY, SELF SERVING politician we could do without.
#8 by Mike on 07/22/2012 - 08:33
Corker has not read the LOST treaty. He makes a joke about it.
#9 by Eric Holcombe on 07/22/2012 - 08:44
Ken,
Thanks for doing my homework.
)
Not to diminish your find, but I should have clarified I was looking on his taxpayer funded website:
http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/
Couldn’t find a link to any of the UN treaties there. I’ll admit the link you provided is the same letter referenced from your earlier post, which I recognized in my last post as seeming to be Bob’s intent -(really it’s all any of us have to go on), but really puzzling he doesn’t have anything on his senate site under current issues about it – or any of the UN treaties for that matter. It bothers me more that the Senators don’t call out the fraud of a treaty with a non-nation/state entity rather than waiting “to see if it’s unconstitutional”. I guess it’s a bigger deal to us than it is to Bob – though I am hearing about all these treaties on a daily basis via ‘news’ sources.
I stand by my claims on Bob’s robo-emails. I know he may or may not write those, but approves them for dissemination if they are “close” to the topic inquired about. This explains why they often don’t match your questions. He very likely doesn’t have time to respond individually (though Duncan makes a much better appearance of it). I figured regular updates to his “issues” section of his web site would be easier.
My prediction is that Republicans will hope like heck that “the administration” a.k.a. SOS Clinton, will agree to this treaty (or either of the other two) before November and the Democrats in the Senate ratify in a hurry so they can cry foul and “vote Romney”. The political hay is too important and that potential appears more important than taking a hard stand. We’d rather argue about tax returns. Democrats will not want to vote but can’t risk loss of the majority after November. CFR members like Lamar! win either way.
As for principled activism, not allowing discussion of Bob’s actual votes and deeds (fruits) and restricting it to what he might do in the future, isn’t the wisest way to select a candidate either.
As for “blind, reflexive commitment to the party line regardless”, I believe George Washington was correct in his farewell address about the foolishness and consequences that would result from political parties.
Thanks for letting me post.
#10 by Blue Collar Muse on 07/22/2012 - 20:19
Eric -
You are always welcome to post. I just like for people to be relevant to the discussion at hand. Sometimes I fail at that myself.
The good news is that this particular issue seems to be cleared up. Senator Corker has, indeed, been on the record for over a year now on his position on the UN Small Arms Treaty. That position is that he opposes it as he has told anyone who has asked.
I think your recommendation that he place the notices on his Senate site along with his personal site is a good one. But I also find it a bit refreshing that Corker has done the right thing on the SAT without feeling the need to declare to the world, “Look at me and what I’ve done!!” He just did the right thing and moved on. Can’t find a lot wrong with that behavior.
Pingback: UN Small Arms Treaty 2012 Update: Thanks, Senator Corker!! | Blue Collar Muse