The Effects of Global Governance

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PoliticalChic, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,878
    Thanks Received:
    15,685
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,028
    Sadly, there are lots of folks who are less than astute...or who fail to pay attention to important political decisions. The election proved that.
    One of the ineluctable ramifications of said election is that globalism clouds our future.

    One rube posted this: "The Globalists who insist that our leaders be held to a standard of international justice are "bad" globalists. (of course, we had no problem with international tribunals at the end of WWII to try the Axis leaders.)"

    Reeks of sarcasm.
    But fails to understand who decides the standard...
    The simple minded believe that 'justice' means the same thing to all people.

    Globalism is the end of our sovereignty. It is the very antithesis of a free people making the decisions that govern a nation.
    Consider the effects of global governance on domestic law.




    1. The United Nations has a convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, (CEDAW), adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly. Nations not joining: Sudan, Syria, Iran…and the United States.
    The ideas sounds good...as do so many until one sees the details.


    2. Why not join? The American Bar Association has a 200 page analysis explaining exactly what compliance would mean. It explains that the UN sends monitoring groups, which ask hundreds of questions…which would all move toward law suits.

    a. The UN convention is not about equality of opportunity, or equality under the law, but about de facto equality, equality of outcome.

    b. …statistical equality.

    c. …..an obligation for gender quotas.





    3. The questions that the UN will assign if the law is ratified:

    a. What programs exist to educate judges about CEDAW’s precedence over national law?

    b. Has the State created a national machinery dedicated to the advancement of women through the promotion of more equitable gender roles?

    c. Does the State have a long-term plan to promote the advancement of women? http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/CEDAW-Senate-testimony-Fonte-John-11182010.pdf





    4. Consider the ideology involved: the partisan agenda of the Western progressives disguised as universal human rights.

    a.When they went to France…they decried that there were not 50% of women on corporate boards, and/or financial institutions…so they asked for financial sanctions against any who did not have the correct ratios.

    b. In Germany the monitors demanded to know why the government had not conducted a study to find out why fathers were reluctant to use parental leave.




    5. The problem is not only the UN, which cannot at this time enforce their laws, but the fact that American legal elites are not just behind same…but in front of same. And, that there are many other UN conventions…’the rights of the child,’ etc. The ‘rights of the disabled’ treaty is currently before the Senate….and it has many hidden measures and quotas.

    a. It should not be missed that the above distorts our constitutional process, and replaces same with a foreign process. It enters our constitutional process, and shrinks it by adding weight to one side; it damages democratic decision making. It ends federalism, as these decisions are always at the federal level. It short-circuits business, and parental rights of a civil society.






    6. This movement is adversarial to American interests and values, and limited constitutional government. It claims that it is in our interest, so that when other nations are superior to ours, they will also behave globally. This is naïve at best. What is best for our interests is a military inferior to none, and the will to use it. It fails on the Utopian premise that other nations will behave as the progressives predict; they will simply say ‘that was then, this is now.”

    a. The most vital interest of the United States is the perpetuation of democratic self-government….hardly the subordination of our sovereignty.

    b. Beware of the supporters of this movement making us too weak to defend ourselves…..and seeing that as support for global governance.

    c. Europe has succumbed. 60-80 % of all laws in the EU are initiated by the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, the European Commission…no longer by parliaments, the House of Commons, and other national legislative bodies.
    Globalism: Beware.
    Covered in detail in“Sovereignty or Submission,” by John Fonte



    We all know of globalism under a different name:

    "Last thing I remember, I was
    Running for the door
    I had to find the passage back
    To the place I was before
    "Relax, " said the night man,
    "We are programmed to receive.
    You can check-out any time you like,
    But you can never leave!
    "
     
  2. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,203
    Thanks Received:
    11,272
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,290
    Wasn't it the 'globalist government' of the United Nations that put sanctions on Iraq?

    Weren't those globalist government sanctions cited by the Bush administration, not to mention virtually every defender of the Iraq war since then, as legal justification for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of its government?
     
  3. BreezeWood
    Offline

    BreezeWood VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,684
    Thanks Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +475
    the Garden has no boundaries.
     
  4. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    So you're agreeing with the OP?
     
  5. Mr. Shaman
    Offline

    Mr. Shaman Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    23,892
    Thanks Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +819
    No doubt.....


    [​IMG]

     
  6. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,203
    Thanks Received:
    11,272
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,290
    The OP won't state her position on the matter. She already got beat up on this in her previous thread and has now pulled the well worn message board tactic of fleeing the other thread and starting a new one on the same topic.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,510
    Thanks Received:
    5,417
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,339
    Beware, the PC's of the world think they should run the nuthouse.
     
  8. Mr. Shaman
    Offline

    Mr. Shaman Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    23,892
    Thanks Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +819
    Let's just say she's having a "small" problem dealing with the 2012 Massacre.


    [​IMG]
     
  9. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    So wait was Bush a foreign policy genius? It sounds to me like you are giving Bush credit for being a genius in foreign policy or else you wouldn't be using his decisions with such weight here.
     
  10. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,877
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,298
    Ironic that when Bush was Governor of Texas, he argued for sovereignty of the state AGAINST the intrusion of international law regarding defense of foreign nationals in criminal cases.

    The REAL issue is that people want political control and CONSENT to be respected when it's THEIR policies on the line. When it comes to "other people, groups or interests," suddenly this concept of consent and democratic process goes out the window.

    People are SELECTIVE in how they will invoke Constitutional laws or rights, where it defends THEIR arguments and interests.

    (The example I still cannot resolve, is how people can justify the health care bill if it matches their agenda, even though the arguments go totally against the SAME people and parties' views of prochoice and representation; so when it comes to prochoice arguments against illegalizing or penalizing the choice of abortion, these SAME people take the side of defending "free choice" against federal regulations "they don't agree with" but when it comes to the health care bill, then suddenly the SAME people take the side of justifying the loss of choice or freedom for the sake of whatever agenda or legislation they are pushing.

    Doulby ironic, these SAME people accuse OPPONENTS of the bill for doing the same thing. They claim that when the REPUBLICANS were pushing it, then it is a good solution; but only when the DEMOCRATS/OBAMA push it, then it is forced socialism and a problem. So they are quick to point out hypocrisy on the side of opponents, but deny or justify their own.

    Totally mindboggling that people cannot see this because they are too busy blaming the other. For Godsakes, you would think people would at least be FAIR and admit BOTH sides are biased. That would even be an improvement or small dose of reality instead of only pushing one side and being totally blind to the objections of the other as if that isn't valid.)
     

Share This Page