This means that 143 United Nations member states will not take refugees in the crisis created by the United Nations:
I assume that 143 ambassadors did NOT listen to the Chicago sewer rat’s speech”
Question: So how many countries did surrender their immigration policies to United Nations bureaucrats? Answer: I know of one for sure:
I did not have to read the transcript of the sewer rat’s final speech to know what he said. I do know that in his sick worldview national sovereignty means isolationism. He is not, and never was, clever enough to convince Americans that the elimination of every national border followed by mass migrations imposed on every nation by the United Nations will make a better world than will free peoples controlling their own borders.
Finally, there is a silver lining in Obama's dark cloud. The rat's
HUNDREDS of thousands of refugees will be granted free access to 50 countries as the global political community agrees to share the burden of the migrant crisis.
I assume that 143 ambassadors did NOT listen to the Chicago sewer rat’s speech”
National ambassadors could only attend Obama's speech if they promised to pledge their support in advance.
Shock UN agreement grants thousands of migrants FREE ACCESS to scores of countries
By Patrick Christys
04:22, Wed, Sep 21, 2016 | UPDATED: 07:58, Wed, Sep 21, 2016
Shock UN agreement grants thousands of migrants FREE ACCESS to scores of countries
By Patrick Christys
04:22, Wed, Sep 21, 2016 | UPDATED: 07:58, Wed, Sep 21, 2016
Shock UN agreement grants thousands of migrants FREE ACCESS to scores of countries
Question: So how many countries did surrender their immigration policies to United Nations bureaucrats? Answer: I know of one for sure:
In truth, filthy United Nations scum now dictate America’s immigration policies to the point of erasing the line dividing illegal and legal.
It is too late to do anything about the sewer rat except tell him to go live in a totalitarian government after he leaves office. Those of us who prefer freedom in a limited form of government do not have as many choices as does the liar in chief; choices like Iran, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and the always popular Cuba. “Go live there.” is what he should be telling his kind:
Taxation Supports The Private Sector!
It is too late to do anything about the sewer rat except tell him to go live in a totalitarian government after he leaves office. Those of us who prefer freedom in a limited form of government do not have as many choices as does the liar in chief; choices like Iran, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and the always popular Cuba. “Go live there.” is what he should be telling his kind:
Taxation Supports The Private Sector!
I did not have to read the transcript of the sewer rat’s final speech to know what he said. I do know that in his sick worldview national sovereignty means isolationism. He is not, and never was, clever enough to convince Americans that the elimination of every national border followed by mass migrations imposed on every nation by the United Nations will make a better world than will free peoples controlling their own borders.
Finally, there is a silver lining in Obama's dark cloud. The rat's
. . . strategy might have an unintended victim: the U.N.
The willingness of the U.N. to play along with these partisan games will redound negatively on the U.N. Already, it has increased skepticism and disapproval of the U.N. among conservatives and supporters of congressional prerogatives.
According to Gallup, a strong majority of the U.S. public sees the U.N. as doing a “poor job.” By enmeshing the U.N. in U.S. partisan politics, Obama may be entrenching this perspective. Further undermining U.S. support for the U.N. may end up being one of Obama’s more lasting legacies
The willingness of the U.N. to play along with these partisan games will redound negatively on the U.N. Already, it has increased skepticism and disapproval of the U.N. among conservatives and supporters of congressional prerogatives.
According to Gallup, a strong majority of the U.S. public sees the U.N. as doing a “poor job.” By enmeshing the U.N. in U.S. partisan politics, Obama may be entrenching this perspective. Further undermining U.S. support for the U.N. may end up being one of Obama’s more lasting legacies
Obama’s Use of UN to Advance Partisan Agenda Hurts the Organization Long-Term
Brett Schaefer / September 20, 2016 /
Obama’s Use of UN to Advance Agenda Hurts UN in Long Term
Brett Schaefer / September 20, 2016 /
Obama’s Use of UN to Advance Agenda Hurts UN in Long Term