Ukraine gave up its nukes at America’s urging, leaving them powerless to stop Russia. Now what happens?

Now what happens? https://t.co/YrjFVRxAKV

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) February 5, 2017

On December 8th 1987 Reagan and Gorbachev signed a treaty to roll back their nuclear powers

On December 8th 1987 Reagan and Gorbachev signed a treaty to roll back their nuclear powers pic.twitter.com/MqYKockUZP

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) December 8, 2016

The Paris treaty has NEVER been popular, which is why Obama refused to submit it to the Senate

Fantasy. Paris treaty has NEVER been popular, which is why Obama refused to submit it to the Senate. Trump should. https://t.co/SF2k8mi4aW pic.twitter.com/r4m3Gnuzzr

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 16, 2016

Obama proves Tom Cotton right

◼ President Obama twice failed to honor his predecessor's signatures on free-trade deals, doing exactly what a letter from 47 Republican senators suggested the next president might do with an Iran nuclear deal not approved by Congress — refuse to honor it and demand modifications. - Charles Hoskinson/Washington Examiner

The apparent contradiction hasn't dimmed the Democratic outrage over the GOP's March 9 letter.

Obama mustn't bypass Congress with Iran deal

◼ WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL

As President Obama's negotiators met this April to continue discussions with Iran about its nuclear program, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing whether the Obama administration would bring any deal it struck with Tehran for congressional approval. Kerry's answer was immediate and unequivocal.

“Well, of course, we’d be obligated to under the law,” Kerry said. “We would absolutely have to, and so clearly, what we do will have to pass muster with Congress. We well understand that.”

Six months later, the administration is less clear on the matter. Or maybe what's less clear is whether Kerry was sincere. The New York Times reports this week that administration officials are so eager to make a deal with the mullahs — whether or not it does “pass muster with Congress” — that “[i]f agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.” In fact, Obama wants to prevent Congress from having any say in the matter “for years,” as one anonymous senior official put it.

The idea is to have Obama “temporarily” — which actually means “permanently but without formal congressional approval” — suspend sanctions against Iran. In exchange, Tehran would allow nuclear inspectors in and limit the number of nuclear centrifuges it has spinning.

Obama's trial balloon in a loyal media outlet this week suggests that he expects a deal that Congress would hate — one not in America's best interests. If so, it would not be the first time he was more inclined to side with Iran's government than with the overwhelming will of his own country's representatives on Capitol Hill....

American policy is not made by a single person acting unilaterally. The people also elect a legislative branch, the nearly unanimous input from which cannot be rendered meaningless by Obama's desire for a deal at any cost.

It's no surprise that Obama wants to sidestep Congress. He has done so repeatedly on less consequential matters, eliciting rebukes from the Supreme Court. Especially on a matter as serious as this one, he must do what his Secretary of State, on his behalf, promised, and bring any deal to Congress so that the people's representatives can decide.

Obama getting more aggressive on seizing power

◼ Obama’s new power grab: A climate change treaty without Senate ratification - HotAir

It’s not a “new” treaty, apparently, if they’re rewriting an old treaty that’s already been ratified. Maybe that’s a sneak peek of Obama’s Syria policy too. Instead of asking for a new AUMF against ISIS, he could issue an “addendum” or whatever to the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda. Come to think of it, that’s his approach on immigration too. The mega-amnesty he’s getting ready to uncork isn’t being presented as new policy, even though it would legalize five million people or more. It’s being presented as a discretionary application of law that’s already on the books.

Turns out every bold new move Obama wants to make as president has already been authorized by statute, as if prophesied. I’m almost grateful in hindsight that he asked Congress to pass ObamaCare instead of deciding that some clause buried in the original Medicare bill allows him to order universal health care by fiat.

OBAMA CAN 'SIMPLY BAN ALL HANDGUNS'

◼ Prospects look fairly bleak for sweeping gun-control legislation in Congress, but action at the United Nations and in several states may end up having the same effect – possibly even opening the door for Obama to ban all handguns, according to one expert. - WND

On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT. Supporters, including the Obama administration, contend this is designed to crack down on illicit arms trafficking, but critics say it’s really an effort to stamp out gun rights in the U.S. and beyond.

“It’s far beyond what it’s purported to do. It requires this country keep a national gun registry of gun owners. In addition, it could be used as a justification for banning semi-autos and banning handguns without any further legislation,” said Mike Hammond, chief counsel at Gun Owners of America.

“It could be interpreted as self-implementing, and by an executive order Obama would simply ban all handguns using this treaty.”

Hammond told WND the ATT could also lead to microstamping, which would require tiny signatures to be on every cartridge fired and would be very expensive. He said the treaty will die in the U.S. Senate. Sixty-seven votes are needed to ratify any treaty and in recent weeks, 53 senators indicated their opposition to the ATT. But Hammond said that may not deter Obama.

“It has no chance of being ratified, but I expect to see an effort by the Obama administration to enforce it, even without ratification,” said Hammond.

◼ Gun rights advocates fear U.N. treaty will lead to U.S. registry - Washington Times

With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 155-3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against the proposal.

U.S. gun rights activists say the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. The activists said they do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

Second Amendment supporters worry that such records eventually will pave the way for a national firearms registry, currently prohibited by federal law.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying he would sue to block the treaty if it is ratified. It “appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN,” the letter said.
The Senate last month also signaled its aversion, voting 53-46 to oppose the treaty in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate. Eight Democrats joined all 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.
Sen. Jerry Moran, Kansas Republican, said Tuesday that it made no sense to pass a treaty that will bind the U.S., while Iran, Syria and North Korea will ignore it.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over — or seeking ratification of — five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions.

◼ Obama’s sneaky treaties - Dick Morris/The Hill

Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.

Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.

International Criminal Court — Clinton has reversed George W. Bush’s policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of “aggression,” which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations....

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar’s primary in Indiana is over this year....LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free. ...Read the rest...