The UN: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

[PoliticalChic]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

1. Always available to teach those who 'eagerly await'!
To be more informed, pick up Fonte's "Sovereignty or Submission."

2. Take a look at events of October, 2001. Forty seven American human rights and civil rights activists sent a letter to the UN’s high commission for human rights, demanding that the United States be targeted over “pervasive and persistent patterns of racial discrimination…” They charged that the government has not met its obligations to eliminate discrimination despite its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1994. The demands included:

a. Reparations to people of African descent
b. Admission that statistical disparities between the races is the result of systemic racism in the United States.
c. Affirmative action
d. An adequate standard of living is a right, not privilege.
e. Emphasis on anything other than multilingualism is discriminatory
f. Admission that free-market capitalism is a flawed system.

3. Any view of the processes involved in implementing these proposals would involve a collision with the American democratic system. Certainly the activists and NGO’s who indicted the United States don’t like the decision-making process within the American democracy, and were resorting to a process outside of the U.S. Constitution.

4. The actions and interests of the party of global governance illustrates the postconstitutional agenda that will be fought this century.

a. The government ratified CERD, with reservations removing restrictions on so called hate-speech. The NGO’s and activists bitterly opposed any reservations related to the treaty.

b. “…human rights groups, 12 of which presented their views here, rejected the report, saying that the government had ignored the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the United States and that the report had omitted pledges of action to solve remaining problems…. They also asked why Washington had refused to sign the portion of the treaty barring racist speech.” U.S. Reports Progress in Fighting Bias - Rights Groups Are Critical - NYTimes.com

5. The US policies satisfied neither the UN committee nor the NGOs, who would not accept equal treatment for minorities, but, rather, equal results- that is to say, statistical equality among the races in all areas of American society.

a. Erika George, attorney for Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had “simply reiterated a position which already doesn’t comply with the CERD and which indicates no willingness to comply.”

b. To be clear, to comply, the United States would have to abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule.


6. Global governance, e.g., the UN, is an existential threat to American democracy.

So in 2001, ELEVEN YEARS AGO, some nutjobs filed a complaint, and you are just now getting around to it?

Did we make reparations? Was the claim even given any legitimacy?

I can make a claim the US owes me a steak dinner and throw up some treaty as being the reason I am owed a steak dinner. That is not evidence the treaty itself is sucking away our national sovereignty and retroactively killing WWI soldiers.


Try again.

Quote the relevant parts of the treaties which have your panties in a bunch, and explain what those parts are doing to us. Show us actual examples where we have had to "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule" because of those.

.


.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


That pretty much sums you up, doesn't it.

 

[RosieS]

Just two letters will drive a John Bircher into drooling, raving lunacy: U and N.

Regards from Rosie

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “Can’t we all just get along?” Such a benign, and beguiling idea….one short step from Utopia! Everyone can sit around singing ‘Kumbaya.’ ‘Cause, groups coming together to solve big problems always agree, and always come up with the just solution….don’t they?

No one rational has ever suggest the above is true. Start with a false premise, and devolve into your usual psychobabble.

a. No…they don’t. Last time we saw the experiment, it was called ‘the worker’s paradise….’ and one hundred million paid with there lives in the interests of unanimity.

You're opening quote has absolutely nothing to do with your 'a' above.

2. Let’s be clear: on a world-wide stage, the alternative is national sovereignty, Sans the strong arm of the United States, the United Nations is seen for what it is: a luncheon club for windbags who don’t pay their parking tickets. Yet, it serves an important function for the totalitarians who dream of world domination: a ‘front’ as they slowly but surely embezzle power, primarily in our nation.

Your '2' above has nothing to do with your opening quote or your 'a' above.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Have you ever considered taking thinking lessons? I'd chip in, oh, $1.17 for them.

"No one rational..."

I've seen your posts.

There is no possibility that you have even a passing acquaintance with anyone fitting that description.

 

[hazlnut]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


That pretty much sums you up, doesn't it.

....Says the dippy chick scared of the UN...

 

[mjollnir]

1. “Can’t we all just get along?” Such a benign, and beguiling idea….one short step from Utopia! Everyone can sit around singing ‘Kumbaya.’ ‘Cause, groups coming together to solve big problems always agree, and always come up with the just solution….don’t they?

No one rational has ever suggest the above is true. Start with a false premise, and devolve into your usual psychobabble.

You're opening quote has absolutely nothing to do with your 'a' above.

2. Let’s be clear: on a world-wide stage, the alternative is national sovereignty, Sans the strong arm of the United States, the United Nations is seen for what it is: a luncheon club for windbags who don’t pay their parking tickets. Yet, it serves an important function for the totalitarians who dream of world domination: a ‘front’ as they slowly but surely embezzle power, primarily in our nation.

Your '2' above has nothing to do with your opening quote or your 'a' above.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Have you ever considered taking thinking lessons? I'd chip in, oh, $1.17 for them.

"No one rational..."

I've seen your posts.

There is no possibility that you have even a passing acquaintance with anyone fitting that description.

Yes, I'm sure you have, and I'm sorry they always fly right over your pointy little Downs Syndrome head.

For your sake, I'll try to limit myself to one and two syllable words.

Hey, how's that mandated therapy that the judge ordered for you going?

 

[g5000]

1. Always available to teach those who 'eagerly await'!
To be more informed, pick up Fonte's "Sovereignty or Submission."

2. Take a look at events of October, 2001. Forty seven American human rights and civil rights activists sent a letter to the UN’s high commission for human rights, demanding that the United States be targeted over “pervasive and persistent patterns of racial discrimination…” They charged that the government has not met its obligations to eliminate discrimination despite its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1994. The demands included:

a. Reparations to people of African descent
b. Admission that statistical disparities between the races is the result of systemic racism in the United States.
c. Affirmative action
d. An adequate standard of living is a right, not privilege.
e. Emphasis on anything other than multilingualism is discriminatory
f. Admission that free-market capitalism is a flawed system.

3. Any view of the processes involved in implementing these proposals would involve a collision with the American democratic system. Certainly the activists and NGO’s who indicted the United States don’t like the decision-making process within the American democracy, and were resorting to a process outside of the U.S. Constitution.

4. The actions and interests of the party of global governance illustrates the postconstitutional agenda that will be fought this century.

a. The government ratified CERD, with reservations removing restrictions on so called hate-speech. The NGO’s and activists bitterly opposed any reservations related to the treaty.

b. “…human rights groups, 12 of which presented their views here, rejected the report, saying that the government had ignored the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the United States and that the report had omitted pledges of action to solve remaining problems…. They also asked why Washington had refused to sign the portion of the treaty barring racist speech.” U.S. Reports Progress in Fighting Bias - Rights Groups Are Critical - NYTimes.com

5. The US policies satisfied neither the UN committee nor the NGOs, who would not accept equal treatment for minorities, but, rather, equal results- that is to say, statistical equality among the races in all areas of American society.

a. Erika George, attorney for Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had “simply reiterated a position which already doesn’t comply with the CERD and which indicates no willingness to comply.”

b. To be clear, to comply, the United States would have to abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule.


6. Global governance, e.g., the UN, is an existential threat to American democracy.

So in 2001, ELEVEN YEARS AGO, some nutjobs filed a complaint, and you are just now getting around to it?

Did we make reparations? Was the claim even given any legitimacy?

I can make a claim the US owes me a steak dinner and throw up some treaty as being the reason I am owed a steak dinner. That is not evidence the treaty itself is sucking away our national sovereignty and retroactively killing WWI soldiers.


Try again.

Quote the relevant parts of the treaties which have your panties in a bunch, and explain what those parts are doing to us. Show us actual examples where we have had to "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule" because of those.

.


.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


That pretty much sums you up, doesn't it.

I asked for evidence to support your bloviation.

Here I am. Eyes wide open, sweetie. Show me the parts of the treaties which have your panties in a bunch. Show me where we have had to "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule".

Any jackwad can make claims.

Prove them. A list of war dead is just so much smoke. Show me the parts of the treaties, which I seriously doubt you have even seen so much as a title page of, which do these things and where we have done them.

We never did make reparations to the darkies, now did we. So that was just a gigantic diversion on your part to cover up the fact your bag is empty.



.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

UN Global governance will replace our Constitution. The Constitution was written PRECISELY so that Kings in foreign lands (The UN) can't tell us what to do and that the People are the Sovereign, not Kings.

If you don't understand that then there's no hope for you.

Our US Constitution was written so that no international convention will be obeyed without the advice and consent of the US Senate and the signature of the President.

If you don't understand that, then there is no hope for YOU.

.

The view that you would invest such unmitigated trust in the same elected officials who regularly ignore the Constitution suggests to me that I offer you an amazing deal on the purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge....hardly used!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

1. Always available to teach those who 'eagerly await'!
To be more informed, pick up Fonte's "Sovereignty or Submission."

2. Take a look at events of October, 2001. Forty seven American human rights and civil rights activists sent a letter to the UN’s high commission for human rights, demanding that the United States be targeted over “pervasive and persistent patterns of racial discrimination…” They charged that the government has not met its obligations to eliminate discrimination despite its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1994. The demands included:

a. Reparations to people of African descent
b. Admission that statistical disparities between the races is the result of systemic racism in the United States.
c. Affirmative action
d. An adequate standard of living is a right, not privilege.
e. Emphasis on anything other than multilingualism is discriminatory
f. Admission that free-market capitalism is a flawed system.

3. Any view of the processes involved in implementing these proposals would involve a collision with the American democratic system. Certainly the activists and NGO’s who indicted the United States don’t like the decision-making process within the American democracy, and were resorting to a process outside of the U.S. Constitution.

4. The actions and interests of the party of global governance illustrates the postconstitutional agenda that will be fought this century.

a. The government ratified CERD, with reservations removing restrictions on so called hate-speech. The NGO’s and activists bitterly opposed any reservations related to the treaty.

b. “…human rights groups, 12 of which presented their views here, rejected the report, saying that the government had ignored the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the United States and that the report had omitted pledges of action to solve remaining problems…. They also asked why Washington had refused to sign the portion of the treaty barring racist speech.” U.S. Reports Progress in Fighting Bias - Rights Groups Are Critical - NYTimes.com

5. The US policies satisfied neither the UN committee nor the NGOs, who would not accept equal treatment for minorities, but, rather, equal results- that is to say, statistical equality among the races in all areas of American society.

a. Erika George, attorney for Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had “simply reiterated a position which already doesn’t comply with the CERD and which indicates no willingness to comply.”

b. To be clear, to comply, the United States would have to abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule.


6. Global governance, e.g., the UN, is an existential threat to American democracy.

So in 2001, ELEVEN YEARS AGO, some nutjobs filed a complaint, and you are just now getting around to it?

Did we make reparations? Was the claim even given any legitimacy?

I can make a claim the US owes me a steak dinner and throw up some treaty as being the reason I am owed a steak dinner. That is not evidence the treaty itself is sucking away our national sovereignty and retroactively killing WWI soldiers.


Try again.

Quote the relevant parts of the treaties which have your panties in a bunch, and explain what those parts are doing to us. Show us actual examples where we have had to "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule" because of those.

.


.

"Try again."

Why?


You were unable to absorb it the first time.
This isn't your public school.

 

[freedombecki]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


That pretty much sums you up, doesn't it.

....Says the dippy chick scared of the UN...

In a couple of years, you'll know Political Chic is right, and you sir, are wrong.

 

[hazlnut]

UN Global governance will replace our Constitution. The Constitution was written PRECISELY so that Kings in foreign lands (The UN) can't tell us what to do and that the People are the Sovereign, not Kings.

If you don't understand that then there's no hope for you.

Our US Constitution was written so that no international convention will be obeyed without the advice and consent of the US Senate and the signature of the President.

If you don't understand that, then there is no hope for YOU.

.

The view that you would invest such unmitigated trust in the same elected officials who regularly ignore the Constitution suggests to me that I offer you an amazing deal on the purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge....hardly used!

You must be easy to talk into bed, but a nightmare to kick out.

I guesstimate your I.Q. to be around 72.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

"He" being the President.


If we sign a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

If you claim that treaty required us to buy every darkie a steak dinner and give them 40 acres and a mule, you not only have to show me where it says that, you have to show me we actually gave every darkie a steak dinner and 40 acres and a mule.


Anyone can make a wild assed claim about the effects of a treaty. But it takes real evidence to prove where it says in the treaty what is claimed and that it actually happened that way.

.

"Article 7 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.”

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.



I present the above, not because there is any chance that you can comprehend the direction the nation is going, but simply for the same reasons that I believe a light should go in the freezer as well as the refrigerator.

We currently have Supreme Court Justices who believe in considering foreign law....

...a more sentient individual than you have proven to be would see that in the face of same, the Constitution has no meaning.



I have no doubt that you are equally clueless about the "R2P." A plan that Leftist- Soros- UN ["Responsibility to Protect" (R 2 P)] elites designed to remove sovereignty as a national character.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13492.pdf



Sadly the election has shown that there are far too many like you.

 

[hazlnut]

From Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

"He" being the President.


If we sign a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

If you claim that treaty required us to buy every darkie a steak dinner and give them 40 acres and a mule, you not only have to show me where it says that, you have to show me we actually gave every darkie a steak dinner and 40 acres and a mule.


Anyone can make a wild assed claim about the effects of a treaty. But it takes real evidence to prove where it says in the treaty what is claimed and that it actually happened that way.

.

"Article 7 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.”

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.



I present the above, not because there is any chance that you can comprehend the direction the nation is going, but simply for the same reasons that I believe a light should go in the freezer as well as the refrigerator.

We currently have Supreme Court Justices who believe in considering foreign law....

...a more sentient individual than you have proven to be would see that in the face of same, the Constitution has no meaning.



I have no doubt that you are equally clueless about the "R2P." A plan that Leftist- Soros- UN ["Responsibility to Protect" (R 2 P)] elites designed to remove sovereignty as a national character.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13492.pdf



Sadly the election has shown that there are far too many like you.

Hey, Ms. Piggy, no matter how much copy-pasting you do, you'll never sound smart.

 

[g5000]

From Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

"He" being the President.


If we sign a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

If you claim that treaty required us to buy every darkie a steak dinner and give them 40 acres and a mule, you not only have to show me where it says that, you have to show me we actually gave every darkie a steak dinner and 40 acres and a mule.


Anyone can make a wild assed claim about the effects of a treaty. But it takes real evidence to prove where it says in the treaty what is claimed and that it actually happened that way.

.

"Article 7 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.”

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.



I present the above, not because there is any chance that you can comprehend the direction the nation is going, but simply for the same reasons that I believe a light should go in the freezer as well as the refrigerator.

We currently have Supreme Court Justices who believe in considering foreign law....

...a more sentient individual than you have proven to be would see that in the face of same, the Constitution has no meaning.



I have no doubt that you are equally clueless about the "R2P." A plan that Leftist- Soros- UN ["Responsibility to Protect" (R 2 P)] elites designed to remove sovereignty as a national character.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13492.pdf



Sadly the election has shown that there are far too many like you.

Why are you providing more examples of where we did NOT "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule"?

You are undermining your own case!



You clearly have never even read a treaty. And you think nuisance cases that were dismissed are evidence of the very opposite of what they are. They are, in fact, great examples of where we did not "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule".

Someone tried to stop an execution, and failed. 90 freaking years ago, we turned down a treaty, and have adopted three provisions unilaterally.

You are like, "Here is a case where someone tried to pull something and they did not get anywhere. Here's a case where we did not ratify a treaty and went our own way. HA!"

You are an automaton, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. Very amusing.




.

 

[hazlnut]

Poli-Chick?

What is more scare to you?

A dragon.

A male unicorn.

The UN.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From Article VI of the US Constitution:



Article II:




"He" being the President.


If we sign a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

If you claim that treaty required us to buy every darkie a steak dinner and give them 40 acres and a mule, you not only have to show me where it says that, you have to show me we actually gave every darkie a steak dinner and 40 acres and a mule.


Anyone can make a wild assed claim about the effects of a treaty. But it takes real evidence to prove where it says in the treaty what is claimed and that it actually happened that way.

.

"Article 7 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.”

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.



I present the above, not because there is any chance that you can comprehend the direction the nation is going, but simply for the same reasons that I believe a light should go in the freezer as well as the refrigerator.

We currently have Supreme Court Justices who believe in considering foreign law....

...a more sentient individual than you have proven to be would see that in the face of same, the Constitution has no meaning.



I have no doubt that you are equally clueless about the "R2P." A plan that Leftist- Soros- UN ["Responsibility to Protect" (R 2 P)] elites designed to remove sovereignty as a national character.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13492.pdf



Sadly the election has shown that there are far too many like you.

Why are you providing more examples of where we did NOT "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule"?

You are undermining your own case!



You clearly have never even read a treaty. And you think nuisance cases that were dismissed are evidence of the very opposite of what they are. They are, in fact, great examples of where we did not "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule".

Someone tried to stop an execution, and failed. 90 freaking years ago, we turned down a treaty, and have adopted three provisions unilaterally.

You are like, "Here is a case where someone tried to pull something and they did not get anywhere. Here's a case where we did not ratify a treaty and went our own way. HA!"

You are an automaton, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. Very amusing.




.

You're very, very stupid.

For this nation, dangerously so.

 

[mjollnir]

"Article 7 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.”

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.



I present the above, not because there is any chance that you can comprehend the direction the nation is going, but simply for the same reasons that I believe a light should go in the freezer as well as the refrigerator.

We currently have Supreme Court Justices who believe in considering foreign law....

...a more sentient individual than you have proven to be would see that in the face of same, the Constitution has no meaning.



I have no doubt that you are equally clueless about the "R2P." A plan that Leftist- Soros- UN ["Responsibility to Protect" (R 2 P)] elites designed to remove sovereignty as a national character.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13492.pdf



Sadly the election has shown that there are far too many like you.

Why are you providing more examples of where we did NOT "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule"?

You are undermining your own case!



You clearly have never even read a treaty. And you think nuisance cases that were dismissed are evidence of the very opposite of what they are. They are, in fact, great examples of where we did not "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule".

Someone tried to stop an execution, and failed. 90 freaking years ago, we turned down a treaty, and have adopted three provisions unilaterally.

You are like, "Here is a case where someone tried to pull something and they did not get anywhere. Here's a case where we did not ratify a treaty and went our own way. HA!"

You are an automaton, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. Very amusing.




.

You're very, very stupid.

For this nation, dangerously so.

Capitalism and Sartreist absurdity
Martin McElwaine
Department of Semiotics, Carnegie-Mellon University
1. Capitalist socialism and the neodialectic paradigm of discourse

“Narrativity is part of the economy of consciousness,” says Derrida. It could be said that the masculine/feminine distinction prevalent in Smith’s Mallrats emerges again in Chasing Amy. Baudrillard’s analysis of capitalism holds that society has intrinsic meaning, but only if reality is interchangeable with art; otherwise, academe is unattainable.

However, the characteristic theme of the works of Smith is a self-referential reality. A number of narratives concerning textual desublimation may be discovered.

Thus, the premise of the neodialectic paradigm of discourse implies that language is capable of significant form, given that capitalism is invalid. Hanfkopf[1] states that the works of Smith are not postmodern.

However, any number of discourses concerning the difference between class and sexual identity exist. Derrida promotes the use of Sartreist absurdity to modify and attack culture.
2. Smith and cultural theory

If one examines Sartreist absurdity, one is faced with a choice: either accept the neodialectic paradigm of discourse or conclude that narrative is a product of communication. It could be said that the primary theme of Hanfkopf’s[2] essay on Sartreist absurdity is the role of the participant as reader. A number of dematerialisms concerning the precapitalist paradigm of discourse may be found.

“Sexual identity is part of the meaninglessness of sexuality,” says Lyotard; however, according to Parry[3] , it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the meaninglessness of sexuality, but rather the collapse, and some would say the genre, of sexual identity. But if the neodialectic paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between dialectic constructivism and Marxist capitalism. An abundance of deappropriations concerning the paradigm, and subsequent dialectic, of subcultural society exist.

It could be said that Lacan uses the term ‘the neodialectic paradigm of discourse’ to denote not, in fact, sublimation, but presublimation. Dietrich[4] suggests that we have to choose between textual Marxism and Batailleist `powerful communication’.

Therefore, Marx’s critique of the neodialectic paradigm of discourse holds that the law is intrinsically used in the service of the status quo. Lyotard suggests the use of capitalism to deconstruct hierarchy.

It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a Sartreist absurdity that includes sexuality as a whole. Derrida uses the term ‘neodialectic cultural theory’ to denote the bridge between class and society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is this the same UN that put its seal of approval on the invention of the state of Israel?

THAT UN?

 

[kiwiman127]

The fringe-right loves their bogeymen.

Like children telling ghost stories, they embrace this bullshit.

*Acorn

*Voter fraud

*UN

*Media

You forgot SOCIALISM.

 

[skye]

The UN: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing-


I agree!


I would even go further and say: The UN: Wolf in WOLF'S Clothing because it is dominated by developing third world and left wing countries, whose policies and aims are different to those of those countries in the Western world!

The UN it's full of populists rabble-rousers with hands stretched out for a fast buck from the West!

 

[Lakhota]

I just love these deranged NaziCon threads...