Obama, Power, Soros, World Governance

[PoliticalChic]

1. There are so very many subjects that separate the sentient and savvy, from the sycophant, or follower. At times, in fact, the follower may find a well intentioned idea, and follows. Not bad….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation

8. From the Psalm of Life, by Wordsworth:
“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.”



Don't slumber.

 

[EriktheRed]

Slummin' again, huh?

 

[Liberty]

Another awesome thread.

 

[rightwinger]

1. There are so very many subjects that separate the sentient and savvy, from the sycophant, or follower. At times, in fact, the follower may find a well intentioned idea, and follows. Not bad….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation

8. From the Psalm of Life, by Wordsworth:
“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.”



Don't slumber.

Damn woman......

Do you have a point?

 

[Jroc]

I posted this video on another thread

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O5XxXm8wPE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O5XxXm8wPE[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

1. There are so very many subjects that separate the sentient and savvy, from the sycophant, or follower. At times, in fact, the follower may find a well intentioned idea, and follows. Not bad….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation

8. From the Psalm of Life, by Wordsworth:
“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.”



Don't slumber.

Damn woman......

Do you have a point?

Yeah...look closely at her avitar, her belly button is about to explode from all the bullshit she ingests.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There are so very many subjects that separate the sentient and savvy, from the sycophant, or follower. At times, in fact, the follower may find a well intentioned idea, and follows. Not bad….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation

8. From the Psalm of Life, by Wordsworth:
“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.”



Don't slumber.

Damn woman......

Do you have a point?

Yeah...look closely at her avitar, her belly button is about to explode from all the bullshit she ingests.

I knew this would be over the heads of some folks....

...sorry you couldn't play.

 

[rightwinger]

Damn woman......

Do you have a point?

Yeah...look closely at her avitar, her belly button is about to explode from all the bullshit she ingests.

I knew this would be over the heads of some folks....

...sorry you couldn't play.

Raises hand

I have no idea of what you are talking about or what point you are trying to make. Maybe if you put it in your own words instead of copying someone else, it would be more understandable.

You might even get more people posting on this thread

 

[Seawytch]

 

[L.K.Eder]

soros is an invention of mossad.

and mossad was invented by soros.

isn't that a mindfuck or what.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I posted this video on another thread

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

YouTube - Obama advisor calls for the invasion of Israel

Her in that or any position cause cognitive dissonance and is Orwellian .

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There are so very many subjects that separate the sentient and savvy, from the sycophant, or follower. At times, in fact, the follower may find a well intentioned idea, and follows. Not bad….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation

8. From the Psalm of Life, by Wordsworth:
“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.”



Don't slumber.

Damn woman......

Do you have a point?

I sure do...
...but I am surprised, I didn't think you would be one of the folks who would have trouble seeing the point.

Here, let me help. The United States guarded it's sovereignty jealously....until fairly recently. Our friends of the Left have often allowed good intentions to cloud good judgement...

Allowing a UN body the right to abridge sovereignty is a terrible idea...especially....now get this, when the power today is in the hands of Leftists like Soros, Obama, and Power...and the other mentioned in the OP.

Certainly you can disagree...and all of you guys in the "Can't We All Just Get Along" Brigade certainly will!
I'm sure you think the UN in charge is a great idea!

But, in case you're on the fence, read this:

"Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, an once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.


b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”


d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible."
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

The OP shows how and why the RtoP is being used against Israel....would you argue that the same with respect to the United States is impossible? Under an Obama?

 

[rightwinger]

1. There are so very many subjects that separate the sentient and savvy, from the sycophant, or follower. At times, in fact, the follower may find a well intentioned idea, and follows. Not bad….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation

8. From the Psalm of Life, by Wordsworth:
“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.”



Don't slumber.

Damn woman......

Do you have a point?

I sure do...
...but I am surprised, I didn't think you would be one of the folks who would have trouble seeing the point.

Here, let me help. The United States guarded it's sovereignty jealously....until fairly recently. Our friends of the Left have often allowed good intentions to cloud good judgement...

Allowing a UN body the right to abridge sovereignty is a terrible idea...especially....now get this, when the power today is in the hands of Leftists like Soros, Obama, and Power...and the other mentioned in the OP.

Certainly you can disagree...and all of you guys in the "Can't We All Just Get Along" Brigade certainly will!
I'm sure you think the UN in charge is a great idea!

But, in case you're on the fence, read this:

"Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, an once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.


b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”


d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible."
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

The OP shows how and why the RtoP is being used against Israel....would you argue that the same with respect to the United States is impossible? Under an Obama?

Can't you ever be concise?

OK...now I get your point, same old "US is abandoning its sovereignty to the UN" Bull Shit. I can get the same crap from Glenn Beck without having to wade through the rightwing academic propaganda

Tell us how the US is a puppet to the UN?

 

[candycorn]

Damn woman......

Do you have a point?

I sure do...
...but I am surprised, I didn't think you would be one of the folks who would have trouble seeing the point.

Here, let me help. The United States guarded it's sovereignty jealously....until fairly recently. Our friends of the Left have often allowed good intentions to cloud good judgement...

Allowing a UN body the right to abridge sovereignty is a terrible idea...especially....now get this, when the power today is in the hands of Leftists like Soros, Obama, and Power...and the other mentioned in the OP.

Certainly you can disagree...and all of you guys in the "Can't We All Just Get Along" Brigade certainly will!
I'm sure you think the UN in charge is a great idea!

But, in case you're on the fence, read this:

"Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, an once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.


b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”


d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible."
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

The OP shows how and why the RtoP is being used against Israel....would you argue that the same with respect to the United States is impossible? Under an Obama?

Can't you ever be consise?

OK...now I get your point, same old "US is abandoning its sovereignty to the UN" Bull Shit. I can get the same crap from Glenn Beck without having to wade through the rightwing academic propaganda

Tell us how the US is a puppet to the UN?

Thanks for summing it up; my eyes were glazing over at the wild accusations concerning our constitution.

 

[Blagger]

I saw the point, though in defence of the left (I know, shock horror) it wasn't very clearly made.

What PoliticalChic is drawing to our attention is that certain bodies are influencing/using otherwise well intentioned policies to decrease the sovereignty of the US and interfere with the affairs of other countries, in this case (as explained in the latter half of her post), tipping the odds in favour of countries such as Palestine that have a history of tension with America's middle eastern ally Israel.

 

[edthecynic]

1. There are so very many subjects that separate the sentient and savvy, from the sycophant, or follower. At times, in fact, the follower may find a well intentioned idea, and follows. Not bad….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation

8. From the Psalm of Life, by Wordsworth:
“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.”



Don't slumber.

SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

hehehe

 

[edthecynic]

I posted this video on another thread

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

YouTube - Obama advisor calls for the invasion of Israel

A protection force in Palestine is an invasion of Israel!

It doesn't matter what anyone actually says, CON$ will change it into whatever they want!!!
What an

 

[rightwinger]

Glenn Beck says.....

Obama.... Power...... Soros...... World Governance

Connect the DOTS!

 

[Jroc]

I sure do...
...but I am surprised, I didn't think you would be one of the folks who would have trouble seeing the point.

Here, let me help. The United States guarded it's sovereignty jealously....until fairly recently. Our friends of the Left have often allowed good intentions to cloud good judgement...

Allowing a UN body the right to abridge sovereignty is a terrible idea...especially....now get this, when the power today is in the hands of Leftists like Soros, Obama, and Power...and the other mentioned in the OP.

Certainly you can disagree...and all of you guys in the "Can't We All Just Get Along" Brigade certainly will!
I'm sure you think the UN in charge is a great idea!

But, in case you're on the fence, read this:

"Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, an once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.


b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”


d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible."
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

The OP shows how and why the RtoP is being used against Israel....would you argue that the same with respect to the United States is impossible? Under an Obama?

Can't you ever be consise?

OK...now I get your point, same old "US is abandoning its sovereignty to the UN" Bull Shit. I can get the same crap from Glenn Beck without having to wade through the rightwing academic propaganda

Tell us how the US is a puppet to the UN?

Thanks for summing it up; my eyes were glazing over at the wild accusations concerning our constitution.

Thats the problem have you heard of the 'Kyoto Protocol"? The libs would have had us signed up for that kind of bull


global warming. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of achieving the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[1]

The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of April 2010, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol.[2]

Under the Protocol, 37 countries ("Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries give general commitments. Annex I countries agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level. Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report.[3] These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq) when computing overall sources and sinks.

Kyoto Protocol

is a protocol to the United Nations The Protocol allows for several "flexible mechanisms", such as emissions trading, the clean development mechanism (CDM) and joint implementation to allow Annex I countries to meet their GHG emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I countries, from other Annex I countries, or from annex I countries with excess allowances.

Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual report of inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These countries nominate a person (called a "designated national authority") to create and manage its greenhouse gas inventory. Virtually all of the non-Annex I countries have also established a designated national authority to manage its Kyoto obligations, specifically the "CDM process" that determines which GHG projects they wish to propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board.

 

[Jroc]

I posted this video on another thread

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

YouTube - Obama advisor calls for the invasion of Israel

A protection force in Palestine is an invasion of Israel!

It doesn't matter what anyone actually says, CON$ will change it into whatever they want!!!
What an

So you're in favor of such a thing? Who's the real idiot here?