Obama Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to UN

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PoliticalChic, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,793
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    1. "President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.

    2. ...an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean....
    based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order.

    3. The Task-force’s final recommendations, based in part on the supposed effects of “global warming, were released in a 78-page paper reviewed by KleinOnline.

    4. The entire third section of the report recommends that the U.S. join the UN’s Law of the Sea Convention.

    5. States the report: “The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans.

    6. Until his CIA appointment in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

    7. Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    8. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

    9. Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
    CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

    10. CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch....the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

    11. The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
    The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. That doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification last year to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya."
    Obama quietly seeking to cede U.S. oceans to UN law: Shock recommendation buried in White house report. « Klein Online



    Read carefully....a vote for Obama is a vote to end United States sovereignty.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  2. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    This asshole just keeps attempting to punish America at every opportunity.
     
  3. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    From a Federalist Perspective, We should establish Laws We see necessary, without binding ourselves to agreements that take away from that. The UN is about UN interest, UN Advancement, not ours. UN interest is not always in the best interest of humanity or the planet either. If so, why are so many Tyrant States members? We should act on what we know to be best. Not limited by the ulterior motives and obstructionism of the UN. Maybe the UN could work better on it's Human Right's Issues, and relieving Sufferings and addressing injustices caused by it's member States. :):):) Love You Leon, but you need to snap out of it man.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. L.K.Eder
    Offline

    L.K.Eder unbannable non-troll

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    20,329
    Thanks Received:
    3,611
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    theartching thapphireth
    Ratings:
    +6,811

    "Support Accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a matter of national security, economic self-interest, and international leadership, the Bush Administration is strongly committed to U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Administration urges Congress to provide advice and consent to this treaty as early as possible in the 109th Congress."

    http://www.cmts.gov/downloads/US_ocean_action_plan.pdf
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Good point-----I refuse to vote for Bush too.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. L.K.Eder
    Offline

    L.K.Eder unbannable non-troll

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    20,329
    Thanks Received:
    3,611
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    theartching thapphireth
    Ratings:
    +6,811
    wnd, soros, cia - klein online has learned.

    you are doomed.
     
  7. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,493
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,354

    Bill Clinton was in favor of this also.
     
  8. High_Gravity
    Offline

    High_Gravity Belligerent Drunk Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    40,159
    Thanks Received:
    6,894
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Richmond VA
    Ratings:
    +7,726
    I wouldn't want those UN Pussies in charge of a broom closet.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  9. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,793
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    Bird-man, rather than Republican-Democrat issue....this is American sovereignty vs globalist issue.


    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 years ago [2007] 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.


    If Obama wins reelection, the Justices he appoints will turn over the rights of Americans to international bodies.

    To see the result, consider the UN's actions vis-a-vis Israel.
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,793
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    Just for a minute, paint-boy....consider the facts outside of loyalty to one party or another.

    Are you in favor of our Constitution, our laws, our rights, left to the whims of some European council?

    Think about it.
     

Share This Page