Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 Syrias 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 Americas sovereignty to the international community.
Should the U.S. Support the UN's Responsibility to Protect Doctrine? - Council on Foreign Relations
You didnt answer the question. Furthermore the UN should have been able to prevent the Rwandan Genocide. That was before the 'UN Convention on the Responsibility to Protect' was adopted.
1. And you are avoiding the point.
Should the United States give up the ability to control its own destiny?
2. Even if the Congress signs on to RtoP, or Law of the Sea Convention....does the structure of our government, as the Founders created it, allow same?
a. Article VII is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and 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.
3. Beyond taking care to avoid "foreign entanglements," we are on the precipice of putting our blood and treasure at the command of an unelected foreign council.
You didnt answer the question. Furthermore the UN should have been able to prevent the Rwandan Genocide. That was before the 'UN Convention on the Responsibility to Protect' was adopted.
1. And you are avoiding the point.
Should the United States give up the ability to control its own destiny?
2. Even if the Congress signs on to RtoP, or Law of the Sea Convention....does the structure of our government, as the Founders created it, allow same?
a. Article VII is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and 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.
3. Beyond taking care to avoid "foreign entanglements," we are on the precipice of putting our blood and treasure at the command of an unelected foreign council.
Let me be clear then. Signing the Law of the Sea convention will not cede US oceans to the UN (nor will it take away our freedom of speech). Nor are we giving up the ability to control its own destiny. It's just a rightie talking point of the day.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th state to sign the treaty.[1] To date, 162 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.
1. And you are avoiding the point.
Should the United States give up the ability to control its own destiny?
2. Even if the Congress signs on to RtoP, or Law of the Sea Convention....does the structure of our government, as the Founders created it, allow same?
a. Article VII is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and 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.
3. Beyond taking care to avoid "foreign entanglements," we are on the precipice of putting our blood and treasure at the command of an unelected foreign council.
Let me be clear then. Signing the Law of the Sea convention will not cede US oceans to the UN (nor will it take away our freedom of speech). Nor are we giving up the ability to control its own destiny. It's just a rightie talking point of the day.
Part of our destiny is control of our territorial waters dimwit.
Let me be clear then. Signing the Law of the Sea convention will not cede US oceans to the UN (nor will it take away our freedom of speech). Nor are we giving up the ability to control its own destiny. It's just a rightie talking point of the day.
Part of our destiny is control of our territorial waters dimwit.
We control the entire continental shelf.. There is no UN boogey man going to take that away
1. And you are avoiding the point.
Should the United States give up the ability to control its own destiny?
2. Even if the Congress signs on to RtoP, or Law of the Sea Convention....does the structure of our government, as the Founders created it, allow same?
a. Article VII is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and 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.
3. Beyond taking care to avoid "foreign entanglements," we are on the precipice of putting our blood and treasure at the command of an unelected foreign council.
Let me be clear then. Signing the Law of the Sea convention will not cede US oceans to the UN (nor will it take away our freedom of speech). Nor are we giving up the ability to control its own destiny. It's just a rightie talking point of the day.
Part of our destiny is control of our territorial waters dimwit.
The UN belongs in Saudi Arabia.
Wanna cut the budget?
Withdraw from the UN.
Those American hating bastards can kiss our collective asses.
Gee? I clicked on the OP source and saw WABC Online...Wnd is the source? My god op you should be embarrassed you even made the thread..but no you double down on the stupid..just more evidence that people like you should have zero say in policy...
The UN belongs in Saudi Arabia.
Wanna cut the budget?
Withdraw from the UN.
Those American hating bastards can kiss our collective asses.
With the UN in charge of our waters we will have Russian and Chinese Naval ships docking in Norfolk and San Francisco.
I think California is already Chinese.
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.
Wnd is the source? My god op you should be embarrassed you even made the thread..but no you double down on the stupid..just more evidence that people like you should have zero say in policy...
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.
Only part of the cost is that they are not our armed forces anymore. I guess Sovereignty is just too big a word for you. For me, it is very important.I'd bet you would buy anything, if the packaging was appealing enough. Consider the Constitution the Highest Law in the Land, then consider Dumb Fucks, using the Treaty Clause to Undermine It's own Authority and Jurisdiction. How many years of shenanigans and schemes, before all individual choice is ancient history? The UN, the Tyrant's home away from home. Keep running towards Soft Tyranny, one situation after another, it seems the only thing you know.
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.
Only part of the cost is that they are not our armed forces anymore. I guess Sovereignty is just too big a word for you. For me, it is very important.I'd bet you would buy anything, if the packaging was appealing enough. Consider the Constitution the Highest Law in the Land, then consider Dumb Fucks, using the Treaty Clause to Undermine It's own Authority and Jurisdiction. How many years of shenanigans and schemes, before all individual choice is ancient history? The UN, the Tyrant's home away from home. Keep running towards Soft Tyranny, one situation after another, it seems the only thing you know.
'tensy, our friends on the left are enamored with the belief that government is their 'daddy', and will take care of all their needs....and, just as one might trust their folks to always do the right things for their children....(and they are both treated like children, and act like children,) ...they accept uncritically whatever the government chooses to do.
So...if the Liberal-Progressive view is global governance, then they will go along with same.
Too much trouble, it seems, to compare that view with the vision of the Founders memorialized in the Constitution.
Only part of the cost is that they are not our armed forces anymore. I guess Sovereignty is just too big a word for you. For me, it is very important.I'd bet you would buy anything, if the packaging was appealing enough. Consider the Constitution the Highest Law in the Land, then consider Dumb Fucks, using the Treaty Clause to Undermine It's own Authority and Jurisdiction. How many years of shenanigans and schemes, before all individual choice is ancient history? The UN, the Tyrant's home away from home. Keep running towards Soft Tyranny, one situation after another, it seems the only thing you know.
'tensy, our friends on the left are enamored with the belief that government is their 'daddy', and will take care of all their needs....and, just as one might trust their folks to always do the right things for their children....(and they are both treated like children, and act like children,) ...they accept uncritically whatever the government chooses to do.
So...if the Liberal-Progressive view is global governance, then they will go along with same.
Too much trouble, it seems, to compare that view with the vision of the Founders memorialized in the Constitution.
While surrendering thier own liberty/soverignty in the process and not ever knowing what it ever meant to start wih...not do I think that they care.
Height of laziness and arrogance at our expense, for you see? They VOTE.
'tensy, our friends on the left are enamored with the belief that government is their 'daddy', and will take care of all their needs....and, just as one might trust their folks to always do the right things for their children....(and they are both treated like children, and act like children,) ...they accept uncritically whatever the government chooses to do.
So...if the Liberal-Progressive view is global governance, then they will go along with same.
Too much trouble, it seems, to compare that view with the vision of the Founders memorialized in the Constitution.
While surrendering thier own liberty/soverignty in the process and not ever knowing what it ever meant to start wih...not do I think that they care.
Height of laziness and arrogance at our expense, for you see? They VOTE.
THE RULE: Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.
Yup...they vote...and, like petulant children, they would rather take down the nation...and cost themselves in the process...rather than admit that we are correct.
More like watching YOU explain yourself and flail away...like a flounder on a dock.Wnd is the source? My god op you should be embarrassed you even made the thread..but no you double down on the stupid..just more evidence that people like you should have zero say in policy...
Censorship, the Bigoted Totalitarian's friend. Fuck Off Dirt Bag.
im not censoring her at all...Im just saying she shouldnt get a seat at the table.
This is like watching Herman Cain try to explain foreign policy.
Some people shouldnt be even in the room.
Wnd is the source? My god op you should be embarrassed you even made the thread..but no you double down on the stupid..just more evidence that people like you should have zero say in policy...
Censorship, the Bigoted Totalitarian's friend. Fuck Off Dirt Bag.
im not censoring her at all...Im just saying she shouldnt get a seat at the table.
This is like watching Herman Cain try to explain foreign policy.
Some people shouldnt be even in the room.
