Obama Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to UN

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[SniperFire]

This asshole just keeps attempting to punish America at every opportunity.

 

[Intense]

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.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

"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

 

[dilloduck]

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.

"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

Good point-----I refuse to vote for Bush too.

 

[L.K.Eder]

wnd, soros, cia - klein online has learned.

you are doomed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

"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

Bill Clinton was in favor of this also.

 

[High_Gravity]

I wouldn't want those UN Pussies in charge of a broom closet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so.....another Pc thread..moving on

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.

 

[uscitizen]

From the article:

*The Convention has garnered the unequivocal support of our national security leadership under both Republican and Democratic administrations, because, among other things, it codifies essential navigational rights and freedoms upon which our Armed Forces rely.



I did read carefully.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

"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

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.

wow, it is a conspiracy.

i need to read up on this on WND.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From the article:

*The Convention has garnered the unequivocal support of our national security leadership under both Republican and Democratic administrations, because, among other things, it codifies essential navigational rights and freedoms upon which our Armed Forces rely.



I did read carefully.

Do you know that the UN endorses limitations on free speech?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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

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.

wow, it is a conspiracy.

i need to read up on this on WND.

So that's what they mean by 'You can lead a bird to water, but you can't make 'em drink..."

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

wow, it is a conspiracy.

i need to read up on this on WND.

So that's what they mean by 'You can lead a bird to water, but you can't make 'em drink..."

will the UN pussies delcare marshall law when they are busted for hiding obama's kenyan birth certificate?

sources indicate this.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

From the article:

*The Convention has garnered the unequivocal support of our national security leadership under both Republican and Democratic administrations, because, among other things, it codifies essential navigational rights and freedoms upon which our Armed Forces rely.



I did read carefully.

They didn't .

Thing is, these lies are very effective because rw's WANT to believe them. You can bet this has been copy/pasted and emailed to everyone they know. They don't care that they look like idiots when when they purposely lie - some have even said they will do anything to make President Obama a one term president.

They cannot and do not and will not think for themselves. They leave that to fux.

 

[BlindBoo]

Love it. The "supposed" affects of global warming?

What a dolt.

 

[BlindBoo]

From the article:

*The Convention has garnered the unequivocal support of our national security leadership under both Republican and Democratic administrations, because, among other things, it codifies essential navigational rights and freedoms upon which our Armed Forces rely.



I did read carefully.

Do you know that the UN endorses limitations on free speech?

Of course they do. But the real question is how is that related to this treaty. If it gets ratified do you think the UN will invade us and take away our right to free speech?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

This is why I truly PRAY that Obama loses in november........sure Romney may not be a 5 star candidate but at least he isn't actively hurting our country or actively destroying its sovereignty

 

[PoliticalChic]

From the article:

*The Convention has garnered the unequivocal support of our national security leadership under both Republican and Democratic administrations, because, among other things, it codifies essential navigational rights and freedoms upon which our Armed Forces rely.



I did read carefully.

Do you know that the UN endorses limitations on free speech?

Of course they do. But the real question is how is that related to this treaty. If it gets ratified do you think the UN will invade us and take away our right to free speech?

I hope you don't believe that this is the only attempt to turn the control of the American government over to foreign entities....



1. 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.

2. “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

3. “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


4. "With Russia and China blocking United Nations measures that could open the way for military action, the countries lined up against the government of President Bashar al-Assad sought to bolster Syria’s beleaguered opposition through means that seemed to stretch the definition of humanitarian assistance and blur the line between so-called lethal and non-lethal support.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/w...sistance-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all


5. 3. A “UN Convention on the Responsibility to Protect,” like the innocuously named treaties noted above, would cede a crucial part of America’s sovereignty to the international community.
Should the U.S. Support the UN's Responsibility to Protect Doctrine? - Council on Foreign Relations