Obama Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to UN

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

That does not make me feel any better about losing our soveirnty at all.

 

[asaratis]

Let the UN move to Europe. Let the member nations share more in the operational costs of the UN. As it is, the good old USA pays more than others in keeping the UN financially solvent.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let the UN move to Europe. Let the member nations share more in the operational costs of the UN. As it is, the good old USA pays more than others in keeping the UN financially solvent.

I think we should start charging them property tax on their building....we can deduct it from our annual contribution .

 

[BlindBoo]

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

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.

 

[The T]

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.

Or some 'World Court'?

 

[The T]

Let the UN move to Europe. Let the member nations share more in the operational costs of the UN. As it is, the good old USA pays more than others in keeping the UN financially solvent.

I think we should start charging them property tax on their building....we can deduct it from our annual contribution .

Can we also force UN Delegates to pay traffic fines? Parking tickets?

 

[The T]

Let the UN move to Europe. Let the member nations share more in the operational costs of the UN. As it is, the good old USA pays more than others in keeping the UN financially solvent.

The United Nations:

" Despots and Dictators America-Haters Club..."

 

[Moonglow]

again another trolling anti-Obama hating thread which has no merit.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let the UN move to Europe. Let the member nations share more in the operational costs of the UN. As it is, the good old USA pays more than others in keeping the UN financially solvent.

I think we should start charging them property tax on their building....we can deduct it from our annual contribution .

Can we also force UN Delegates to pay traffic fines? Parking tickets?

Car insurance, liscensing (to drive in NY), excise tax on their cars.....sounds good

 

[The T]

again another trolling anti-Obama hating thread which has no merit.

Surely you missed Obama's "World Apology Tour 2009"?

So Obama selling YOU out and your liberty is no big deal?

Really?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

again another trolling anti-Obama hating thread which has no merit.

Wow our national sovereignty in our waters off our coasts has no merit to you......that says a lot.

 

[The T]

I think we should start charging them property tax on their building....we can deduct it from our annual contribution .

Can we also force UN Delegates to pay traffic fines? Parking tickets?

Car insurance, liscensing (to drive in NY), excise tax on their cars.....sounds good

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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.

 

[Staidhup]

The UN in charge of the oceans, air, wind, or space, is a freaking joke, they are so ripe with corruption and incompetence they can't even manage themselves. Said treaty has no chance in hell of passing muster in congress, unless of course the same ship of fools retain control of the Senate. I think we need to have all our elected representatives take a UA. Our freedom demands that we control our destiny!

 

[High_Gravity]

How about the UN Take control of Irans nuclear program instead?

 

[dilloduck]

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

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.

We do that with our money. Why not our waters? Well I guess the federal reserve isn't totally foreign.

 

[High_Gravity]

With the UN in charge of our waters we will have Russian and Chinese Naval ships docking in Norfolk and San Francisco.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

With the UN in charge of our waters we will have Russian and Chinese Naval ships docking in Norfolk and San Francisco.

You mean alaska.....ha silly americans, your oil is ours

 

[frazzledgear]

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

The problem with the UN is that it treats nations with dictators as if they are the legitimately chosen leaders of their nation and actually have the best interests of their people at heart when NO dictator has their best interests at heart! If he did, there would be the means for the people to peacefully remove him and replace him with another leader of their choice. But dictators always make sure it is impossible for the people of his country to get rid of him without massive bloodshed. Dictators by definition have only their own interests at heart! But still the UN charter allows them and even demands they be treated as if they actually give a flying **** about their own people instead of clinging to power at all cost.

This allows the UN to be INFECTED by these maggot brained, reptilian, power hungry, egomaniacs who then end up as committee members and even chairing the very committees that were created to monitor THEM and THEIR abuses such as Libya, Sudan, Algeria etc. etc etc. on the UN Human Rights committee. What does anyone with a functioning IQ think their REAL purpose and goal is by being on that committee? Think it is no coincidence that committee has condemned Israel in every other word while remaining silent about mass murder, widespread documented HORRORS taking place in these other nations? Come on -Iran as the vice chair of the UN disarmament committee? Get real. The entire thing is nothing but a bad joke. 4 day old dead fish smell better than the UN.

The UN is not a world government -but Obummer seems to think it should be. The same guy who has made no secret of snubbing our allies and kissing the ass of these horror filled monstrosities. Tell me I'm not the only one to notice that Obummer put the most effort to be overthrown the nations with a working peace treaty with Israel and did so even if it meant those who replaced them were far worse and THE single biggest spawners of Muslim terrorist groups in the world (Muslim Brotherhood which was previously banned in Egypt for a REASON) -while not so hot about it and using little more than use harsh words against those who fund anti-Israel terrorism.

The UN isn't a government and absolutely NO nation forfeits a shred of its sovereignty by joining -or obviously none would join. Yet people like Obummer want to pretend it was a retroactive requirement of some kind! It is an organization that is rife with corruption from the top on down, that panders to the world's worst nations while pretending all the world's ills are all due to the fact Israel and/or the US exist. (While sticking us with the bill so they have the platform to do that of course.) It is an organization that nations may voluntarily join OR leave and it is one that worked to insure the US foots the lion's share of the bills.

The US should close US headquarters in NY, tell them to go set up shop in some 3rd world dictatorship, enjoy the local whores, close our wallet and tell them to get the hell away from us. The UN was SPECIFICALLY created with the noble goal that by giving nations the forum to air grievances on a global platform they would resolve their differences and thereby avoid war as well as stop the kind of genocide the entire world allowed to happen during WWll. It has FAILED in its founding mission and it has done so repeatedly now. And it always will because the founding assumption itself that PEACE was the desired goal of all nations was flawed to begin with -it isn't true! It is a naive, dangerous and even lethal notion to believe that all nations have identical goals. All POPULATIONS want peace, people in general just want to live their lives with as little hassle as possible and raise their families. But not all populations are led by freely chosen leaders who accurately reflect and carry out what the people want -back to dictators again! POPULATIONS can be abused and sacrificed by the millions by the self-centered whims of a single ego maniacal dictator -and usually are. Nations with other goals automatically have the nations who desire peace over all else over the barrel and only need to threaten to break the peace unless their demands are met! It is the game Iran is playing right now and it is a page taken right out of the Nazi playbook! Iran isn't ready to confront the world on its terms yet so it offers the false hope it may consider changing its real goals if given time to talk about it some more. This is exactly what Hitler did -all while scrambling back at home to finish what was needed so HE could set the terms of confrontation, a confrontation that was always his intention and goal all along. NOT PEACE. Iran isn't interested in PEACE and anyone who believes otherwise is as deluded as Neville Chamberlain who declared he had achieved "peace in our lifetime". Iran has OPENLY announced, made no bones about the fact it intends a confrontation. But they know it must be on their terms for their best chances and they need time for that to happen. Just like Hitler needed the time -and once he was ready -the rest of the world was fucked. The side that sets the terms for confrontation is already 2/3 of the way to victory. The west is prepared to give Iran ALL the time it needs as long as it keeps using meaningless words and empty promises -learning the REAL lessons of war is one human beings bend over backwards to avoid. No matter how murderously lethal refusing to do so worked out for the world the last time. What saved us last time was Hitler's own screw ups late in the way we were losing for two straight years. What are we counting on to save us this next time? Imagine Hitler with nukes and no compunction about using them, dictators who place very little value on life itself -especially the lives of worthless infidels they believe are despised by their own creator who will applaud their gruesome deaths and reward them for the slaughter. Even as Obummer is busy scrambling to take down our DEFENSIVE MISSILE SHIELDS. Why would anyone who truly loved this nation do such a suicidal thing?

The UN is now a cesspool of corruption with the perverted goal of stripping as much wealth from the US and redistributing it in order to prop up the very dictatorships and horrific regimes that should never have been given a place on any UN committee ever. It is failure not worth the fortune we pour into it. GAME OVER.