Last week, as activists around the state were taking to Twitter, FaceBook, blogs and other forms of media to blast Senator Corker for failing to support our Constitution, 2nd Amendment rights and self defense and saying he was supporting the UN Small Arms Treaty (UNSAT), I wrote a piece titled, Bob Corker’s Detractors Wrong on UN Small Arms Treaty, Too.
I reported and linked to the story that, despite all the furor in the field, not only had Senator Corker not ever supported UNSAT, he had been on record as having opposed it for over a year having signed a letter with 43 other Senators in July of 2011 opposing it.
Amazingly, rather than discover and realize they had been wrong in their depiction of Senator Corker’s position, people continued to try to pillory the Senator for being right and for being correct by complaining that the Senator had inadequately promoted his position. When they called his office they were told where he stood. Many chose to believe reports that confused Corker’s stand on separate issues. I reported on, and linked to, a bluntly worded letter from over 40 Senators clearly stating their opposition to UNSAT. Not sure how much clearer one can be than that, but whatever …
That was July of 2011. Fast forward to July, 2012.
This morning, Senator Moran of Kansas, who drafted the letter signed last July, released another letter stating his opposition to UNSAT. This one was signed by 50 additional Senators, an increase of 7 over last years letter. Bob Corker signed last year’s letter. Senator Corker signed this year’s letter as well.
One hopes this will put to rest, once and for all, idle and incorrect speculation as to Corker’s position. Further, these things are not done overnight. Clearly this has been in the works for weeks. Which means that not only were Corker’s critics wrong on this but, while they were boldly proclaiming their error, Corker was quietly and intentionally working to protect America and Americans from UNSAT – just like he always has.
One hopes a couple of other things. One hopes Tennessee activists really are interested in the policies and positions of their elected officials. One hopes that what they are after is good governance and the right decisions by those officials. One hopes they are not driven by narrow minded, ideological bigotry of their own.
How will we know? Simple …
I’ll be watching my Inbox over the next couple of days. I’ll be looking for emails from activists and organizations around the state praising and thanking Senator Corker for his support for our Constitution, 2nd Amendment rights and self defense. I’ll be looking for emails asking why the other 49 Senators haven’t signed on to the letter like Corker has. I’ll be waiting to hear from Senator Corker’s office that he has received calls and correspondence thanking him for his position.
Politics isn’t particularly hard. It’s pretty much like the rest of life. You live your life, stake your positions, encourage and assist your friends and seek to protect yourself from those who would do you harm. You realize you aren’t perfect and extend that same courtesy to family, friends and allies. You spend more time helping your allies than you do disparaging your opposition.
One day, you wake up and realize that you have more allies and friends than you know what to do with and that you have been effective and made more changes together than you ever could have dreamed by throwing rocks at the glass houses of others.
Bluntly, if you appreciate Senator Corker’s position on UNSAT, say so. Tell your friends and family. Tweet about it. FaceBook it. Blog about it. Most importantly, call or write the Senator and tell him “Thanks!”; thanks for standing up against those who would endanger America and her interests and the rights of her citizens, thanks for representing your views, thanks for doing the right thing. Tell him that you are going on the record thanking him for going on the record with the right decision.
It’s good activism. More than that, it’s common courtesy. I know he’ll appreciate it. Chances are, it’ll make you feel a little warm inside, too.
Pingback: Bob Corker’s Detractors Wrong on UN Small Arms Treaty, Too | Blue Collar Muse
#1 by Matt Collins on 07/26/2012 - 13:33
Well a broken clock is right at least once a day.
It still doesn’t excuse all of his past big-government voting record:
#2 by Blue Collar Muse on 07/26/2012 - 20:48
Which makes your record worse than a busted clock, Matt.
You were wrong about Corker on ObamaCare repeal. You were wrong about Corker on the UN Small Arms Treaty. You were wrong about Corker on LOST. You were wrong this morning on Corker on the Persons with Disabilities Treaty.
Are you seeing a theme here?
And even you seem to think that you are wrong about me and my silly little blog that no one reads. You just can’t help coming by to put in your two cents here in hopes that you can steal a reader or two that you didn’t earn to spread your intentional misrepresentations of Senator Corker and everyone else you choose to opine about.
Last time you were here you vowed never to be back and that you had to go be productive. Which is it, Matt? Is it productive to comment here or not? If it is, why did you suggest it wasn’t? And if it isn’t why are you continuing to be involved in unproductive activities?
As you are so fond of saying about Senator Corker, perhaps you’ll one day actually get one right and then you’ll be tied with your busted clock.
But it still doesn’t excuse all your past lies and intentional deception and distortion of just about anything you choose to address.
It’s a shame, really. I know the principles that you are fighting for. I mostly share them. The difference being that I have a commitment to truth you don’t seem to share. I have a commitment to decency and respect which you don’t seem to share. I have a commitment to actually accomplishing things as opposed to merely running all over the internet like a spastic chicken screaming about made up controversies.
See you the next time you cannot help yourself and break your vow to never come here again …
#3 by Eric Holcombe on 07/26/2012 - 20:49
“Our country’s sovereignty and the rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations,” Sen. Moran said.”
And yet, our Senators are still willing to bend the knee to a non-nation/state entity that isn’t elected by any free people…as long as the treaty is “ok”.
I really can’t get excited about that. It’s about like asking me to praise Planned Parenthood for taking tax payer funds for giving out pregnancy test kits….and calling me narrow-minded and bigoted if I don’t.
#4 by Blue Collar Muse on 07/26/2012 - 23:40
Eric -
There are a couple of problems with your point but I tend to agree with it. The biggest is seeming to limit treating with nations to those that have governments “elected by [a] free people.”
I don’t think that because China is a Communist nation that means we should not enter into a treaty with it. Nor do I believe that just because France has a democratically elected government that they are safe to treat with.
These are treaties. And the reason we vote for or against them is precisely because they are deemed “OK” or not by the Senate.
That having been said, we should be extremely careful who we bind ourselves to and for what, with friend or foe. Treaties are serious things. They deserve the highest examination and scrutiny.
I’m unclear what you mean by “Our Senators.” Do you mean Corker and Alexander? Because if you do, I can only assume you haven’t been paying attention as both Tennessee Senators are on record as not supporting the Small Arms Treaty. If you are talking about Senators in general, well, many of them are with us on this Treaty.
Or perhaps you are referring to any Senator considering any Treaty that originates in the United Nations. That, to me, has a great deal more merit. I’m a fan of getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. Either that, or level the playing field. Other nations have to support the mission or we are free to not support it to the extent that we do.
I’m not opposed to the idea of an international organization, per se. Just that the two we have known in the last 100 years, the League of Nations and the United Nations, have been disasters.
As is often the case, I may have failed to think outside the box. I have been looking at some of these treaties based on the merits of the treaty. I have not been looking at them based on them having originated in the UN.
I’ll want some more information on whether or not a treaty can be entered into with an organization as opposed to a nation. But it’s an interesting avenue to consider. Thanks for bringing it up.
#5 by Eric Holcombe on 07/27/2012 - 09:25
By “our Senators” I meant the latter, i.e. the Senate as a whole, although my argument is made based on the language in this letter. It sounds as if the door is definitely open to making a treaty with the make-believe world authority of the UN, as long as the Senate doesn’t think it is “unconstitutional”. Based on the Patriot Act renewal, TSA, NDAA, VIPR checkpoints and constitution-free zones, etc., I don’t have a lot of confidence in their constitutional judgment at the moment.
We (the United States) created the UN at the same time as the IMF/World Bank and the Bretton Woods agreement, tying the joining member nation’s currencies to ours while offering them loans at interest. Not real smart or “sovereign” for them, but it’s 1945, we just nuked Japan twice, so you can understand why much of the world would agree to whatever we said, whether enemy or friend. This arrangement has made much of the world subservient to us and whether we have “just weights and measures” in our treasury. Now keep in mind, they made this agreement with a country that stole most of it’s citizens gold and silver by presidential executive order in 1933, forced them to take federal reserve bank paper in exchange and then devalued the paper by legislative fiat 40% overnight. But they pegged their fiat currency value to ours because “ours is backed by gold” (suckers). We didn’t have just weights and measures then, and we don’t now. Unfortunately, we are in an ever deepening hole in this regard. To keep the scam going, more control will be necessary. Control of commodities that may be preferred to fiat paper (not just gold & silver, but armaments, food, water), and control of competing currencies. To get this control “world-wide”, you need an international military force and “laws”.
The UN/IMF/World Bank does both of those. It’s our monster. We created it. We keep using it because that is what the plan is. We haven’t declared war according to our Constitution in a single military operation since early 1942. We ask permission from the UN for all of them, and fight our foes as “UN Coalition” forces. This is not insignificant. But these things must come to pass. I think you know enough scripture you can see where this is going. I don’t think it can be stopped, only delayed.
I believe there may very well be people holding elected office that are willingly part of implementation, as well as those that are innocent bystanders (whatever the caucus says they do), and those that see the evil and then seek to divert it (minority). I also believe there is great pressure put on those who don’t just go along. It is that point of realization of what this body is trying to do that tests their resolve…when they are no longer an innocent bystander. Which side to choose? Who drives them then, the largest campaign donors, the hottest lobbyist, the constitution, John Boehner telling them to “get their ass in line” or something else?
Pingback: Pinecone Fletcher: Saturday Links | What Would The Founders Think?
Pingback: Update: Corker on UN small arms treaty | The Penn Ave Post