Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December

[Lex Concord]

He can't do it alone:

U.S. Constitution: Article II: Section 2:

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;

Watch for some excuse to scatter the senate...

 

[Lex Concord]

yes but that wont do any good, treaty is already signed. united states constitution states that once we are locked into a treaty the only way we can get out of it is if we are released by all the other signing parties of the treaty. and that will never happened because all the other nations are poorer nations that will be getting free money from us.

Could you please cite the section of the U.S. Constitution which states this?

The closest I can find is this:

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.

While it holds the U.S. and judges to treaties made, it does not state that we can only be released by unanimous consent of other signatories.

Perhaps you refer to some precedent which applies this principle, or some principle of "international law"?

 

[SavageEagle]

He can't do it alone:

U.S. Constitution: Article II: Section 2:



Watch for some excuse to scatter the senate...

Which, at this point, is a very good possibility that the senate WOULD sign on to this.

Could you please cite the section of the U.S. Constitution which states this?

The closest I can find is this:



While it holds the U.S. and judges to treaties made, it does not state that we can only be released by unanimous consent of other signatories.

Perhaps you refer to some precedent which applies this principle, or some principle of "international law"?

Between the treaty itself and the part of the Constitution that you quoted, his statement is true. The Constitution holds us binding to the treaty as the law of the land, BUT, the treaty itself says that we can only leave the "entity" by vote.

 

[Esperanza]

That's a fairly swift judgment call for a new member. How did you make that assessment so quickly?

You'll forgive my cynicism, but Esperanza? Esperanza y Cambio, quiza?

It was a first impression as I stated. They are generally "swiftly" assessed. I'm impressed by your Spanish skills, but it has nothing to do with Obama's campaign slogan. I've used it in forums since it was my pseudo name in 4th year Spanish.

 

[Esperanza]

Then we have the idea of sending money to third world countries. I'm sure we can all imagine the nightmares this could cause, but for example's sake, it might not fund the PEOPLE, but the tyrannistic regeime ruling over those people instead. So in effect we would be forced to send money to Countries like Somalia and North Korea which is HIGHLY hostile to our own Country.

These are just two ways this treaty would upsurp US Sovereignty. And I haven't even made it past page 15 yet. There's another 185 to sort through.

We have been funding the majority of the UN budget for some time now, and this money does filter down to "3rd World" countries, though that terminology is a bit outdated. The fact is, if you agree with the idea behind the UN and other IGOs then you accept that the hegemon (us) carries the majority of the burden--financial and otherwise. Regardless, the US still remains sovereign. It also wouldn't hurt to note that one of the main principles behind the UN is to avoid interfering in the issues of a sovereign state at all costs. This is one reason it is sometimes hesitant to get involved with human rights issues--as in the case with Rwanda.

 

[4sarge]

We have been funding the majority of the UN budget for some time now, and this money does filter down to "3rd World" countries, though that terminology is a bit outdated. The fact is, if you agree with the idea behind the UN and other IGOs then you accept that the hegemon (us) carries the majority of the burden--financial and otherwise. Regardless, the US still remains sovereign. It also wouldn't hurt to note that one of the main principles behind the UN is to avoid interfering in the issues of a sovereign state at all costs. This is one reason it is sometimes hesitant to get involved with human rights issues--as in the case with Rwanda.

The UN is doing such a stellar job with our hard earned US Taxpayer monies:

UN abuse investigator ignores abusers, investigates Canada
Posted: October 15, 2009, 11:15 PM by NP Editor

Gay McDougall, the UN's chief monitor of the way governments treat minorities, is tasked with entering countries to expose discrimination and abuse.​

So surely the prime targets of her investigative talents are the world's worst human rights abuser states? Places like China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia come to mind -- to name a few of Freedom House's "worst of the worst."​

Yet McDougall arrived in Canada this week after picking the country as her eighth investigative destination since her 2005 appointment as the UN's first Independent Expert on minority issues.​

Her previous "targets" were three European Union members, France, Greece and Hungary; as well as Dominican Republic, Guyana, Ethiopia and Kazakhstan.​

In other words, half of her investigative efforts have been focused on advanced democracies.​

It's not hard to find commentators who say the UN's priorities are upside down.​

"The reality is that every would-be immigrant in the world knows that Canada ranks at the top in its treatment of minorities, thanks to its constitutional guarantees, independent judiciary, elected parliament, vigorous civil society and free press-that all can speak for affected minorities and provide remedies where needed," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch in Geneva, the host city of the UN's main human rights branches.​

"But there is not a single domestic institution that will speak for the two million black African migrants persecuted in Libya, the ethnic minorities oppressed in Tibet, or the women subjugated in Saudi Arabia. That is precisely where an international voice would be vital."​

But the irony does not rest there. The UN statement announcing McDougall's Canadian probe includes a reference to the term "visible minorities," which the UN's anti-racism watchdog told Ottawa to stop using two years ago.​

The statement cites Canadian census data that reveals "visible minorities" represented 16.2 per cent of the Canadian population in 2006.​

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination told Canada in 2007 that Ottawa's use of the term in literature "may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives" of UN's anti-racism convention.​

McDougall, a U.S. national, is visiting Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal in a 10-day tour that ends Oct. 23. The UN says she will meet with senior federal and provincial government officials, representatives of activist groups, community members, academics, and others working to promote "equality and non-discrimination."​

"This mission will enable me to talk directly to people in minority communities about their issues and the challenges facing them," McDougall said ahead of her visit.​

"It will also allow me to learn about the positive experiences of Canada as a vibrant and richly multicultural society."​

Brace yourselves for criticism. McDougall's visit to France resulted in a report that said there was "serious discrimination ... targeted at those ‘visible' minorities of immigrant heritage." She accused Greece of living in the past by having a "historical understanding" of minorities, created in part by "the dissolution of empires." For Hungary, she advised that "Roma issues require urgent and focused attention."​

But of Ethiopia, a country torn apart by ethnic strife, McDougall's observations begin with praise for its "comprehensive foundation for rights, freedoms and equality."​

Democracies such as Canada generally offer a standing invitation to UN investigators in a bid to set a transparent example to less open societies.​

New York- and Washington-based Freedom House lists 21 states and regions as the "worst of the worst." Beyond those mentioned, they include Belarus, Burma, Chinese-ruled Tibet, South Ossetia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia, and Zimbabwe.​

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/15/steven-edwards-un-abuse-investigator-ignores-abusers-investigates-canada.aspx#ixzz0UiKHbtEN
The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW​

 

[4sarge]

The UN is doing such a stellar job "redistributing US wealth"

CHARITY (AND RAPE): UN PEACEKEEPERS, AID WORKERS ABUSE CHILDREN IN SUDAN, HAITI, IVORY COAST

U.N. Aid Workers Accused of Sex Crimes in Congo
Didier Bourguet, a U.N. official from France, is pictured here in one of the images found on his hard drive, which was obtained by ABC News. Also on the hard drive were thousands of photos of him having sex with hundreds of young girls.
(ABC News)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
British charity reports widespread sex abuse of children by UN peacekeepers and aid workers

By EDITH LEDERER Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS May 27, 2008 (AP)
The Associated Press

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed “deep concern” Tuesday after a leading children’s charity said it uncovered evidence of widespread sexual abuse of children at the hands of U.N. peacekeepers and international aid workers.

The report by Save the Children UK, based on field research in southern Sudan, Ivory Coast and Haiti, describes a litany of sexual crimes against children as young as 6.

It said some children were denied food aid unless they granted sexual favors; others were forced to have sex or to take part in child pornography; many more were subjected to improper touching or kissing.

“The report shows sexual abuse has been widely underreported because children are afraid to come forward,” Jasmine Whitbread, chief executive of Save the Children UK, told Associated Press Television News.

 

[Esperanza]

Why is it I state simple facts and you reply with this? One would be hard pressed to find a single government agency (or nongovernment for that matter) without skeletons like you just posted. I'm simply giving facts about the agency as a whole. I'm not stating that UN is the be all, end all or that everything about it is positive. For one, it has become increasingly too large to handle the tasks it was originally designed for. It is complex and inefficient. In the same token, to say that the UN is without its benefits and successes would be completely false.

 

[4sarge]

Why is it I state simple facts and you reply with this? One would be hard pressed to find a single government agency (or nongovernment for that matter) without skeletons like you just posted. I'm simply giving facts about the agency as a whole. I'm not stating that UN is the be all, end all or that everything about it is positive. For one, it has become increasingly too large to handle the tasks it was originally designed for. It is complex and inefficient. In the same token, to say that the UN is without its benefits and successes would be completely false.

I state facts and you complain. The topic is/was the farce of Global Warming and the Ceding of US Sovereignty but you are correct though, the UN needs to go. It's corrupt from the top to the bottom and doesn't serve a useful or humanitarian purpose other than being a monetary drain on successful nations.

 

[4sarge]

Goodbye to national sovereignty?

On its way to the USA

[SIZE=-1][Reprinted from Issues & Views June 3, 2002][/SIZE]

In Europe, the chickens are coming home to roost in the backyards of those countries whose ministers and parliamentary representatives vigorously worked to bring about a union of European countries. The Brits are gearing up to do battle with other EU members, who insist on enlarged powers for the central government in Brussels. The European Commission president, Romano Prodi, is pushing for what he calls "fundamental reform," which includes a direct EU tax on the citizens of all member states, i.e., a Euro-tax.

Prodi also wants to extend majority voting to tax and social policies, and is urging a harmonization of criminal laws. In London, the World quotes a Commission official saying, "We know these ideas will be sensitive, particularly for the British because they touch so closely on questions of national sovereignty." And a British official declares, "These are ideas whose time has not yet come."


Nick Schulz of Tech Central Station reports on the ambitious aims of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Proposals to be offered at the agency's forthcoming Johannesburg Summit include "reducing the excessive consumption of the more affluent." After citing similar wish-fantasies by UNEP bureaucrats, Schulz describes UN mandates designed to force member states to comply with multilateral environmental agreements.

"It boils down to one thing," writes Schulz, "ceding American sovereignty to the UN and other regulatory bodies." Although he believes there is little chance of such an eventuality, he concludes, "There is, indeed, a network of aggressive, well-funded and passionate elites seeking to impose a global regulatory regime. It's not fantasy to say so--all you need to do is read the UN's literature. They may or may not succeed. But no one can say we didn't see it coming."

Copyright © 2009 Issues & Views

 

[4sarge]

The Concept of Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the central organizing principle of the system of states. However, it is also one of the most poorly understood concepts in international relations. This confusion emerges from at least two sources. First, as will be discussed below, sovereignty is in fact a relatively recent innovation connected to the emergence of the nation-state as the primary unit of political organization. Second, what is more, a number of contemporary issues have placed increasing limits on the exercise of sovereign authority. These two factors raise questions about the fixity of the concept of sovereignty often assumed by international relations scholars. A more sophisticated view of sovereignty now envisions states and nonstate actors as engaged in a continual process of renegotiating the nature of sovereignty.[1]

At its core, sovereignty is typically taken to mean the possession of absolute authority within a bounded territorial space. There is essentially an internal and external dimension of sovereignty. Internally, a sovereign government is a fixed authority with a settled population that possesses a monopoly on the use of force. It is the supreme authority within its territory. Externally, sovereignty is the entry ticket into the society of states. Recognition on the part of other states helps to ensure territorial integrity and is the entree into participating in diplomacy and international organizations on an equal footing with other states.

Historical Development

The international system was not always arranged in terms of sovereign states. Through the Middle Ages alternative feudal arrangements governed Europe and city-states lasted up until the modern period. The development of a system of sovereign states culminated in Europe at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This agreement essentially allowed the ruler to determine the religion within his borders, but it also represents both the internal and external aspects of sovereignty. (Internal sovereignty means supreme authority within one's territory, while external sovereignty relates to the recognition on the part of all states that each possesses this power in equal measure.) As Europe colonized much of the rest of the world from the fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries, the state system spread around the globe. Through this time, sovereign authority was clearly not extended to non-Europeans. However, the process of drawing boundaries to clearly demarcate borders would be critical for defining sovereign states during decolonization.

The second, current, movement appears to be the gradual circumscription of the sovereign state, which began roughly after World War II and continues to the present. Much of international law, at least until WWII, was designed to reinforce sovereignty. However, driven by the horrors of the Nazi genocide and the lessons of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, the society of states forged a series of agreements under the auspices of the United Nations that committed states to protect the human rights of their own citizens, a restriction on authority whiting the state. The post-war period also saw the growth of intergovernmental organizations to help govern interstate relations in areas ranging from trade and monetary policy to security and a host of other issue areas. At the same time, much of the non-Western world gained their independence in the decades after World War II, setting up a scenario in which many of the new states were not fully sovereign.[2] Granting former colonies independence and recognizing them as sovereign states, they joined intergovernmental organizations and were ostensibly the equals of European states. At the same time, there was a general lack of capacity to govern the state, combined with arbitrarily drawn borders, that left different groups leery at best in providing a government with supreme authority. Today, sovereignty is essentially based on borders, not any capacity on the part of governments. This was adopted because it was the only means for so many colonies to become independent quickly.[3] Now, sovereignty also entitles developing states to development assistance.

As a result, in many instances, these post-colonial states have lacked the internal dimension of sovereignty.

Contemporary Challenges

Although many see threats to state sovereignty from a wide variety of sources, many of these can be grouped in three broad areas: the rise of human rights, economic globalization, and the growth of supranational institutions, the latter being partially driven by economic integration and the cause of human rights.

The emergence of human rights as a subject of concern in international law effects sovereignty because these agreed upon principles place clear limits on the authority of governments to act within their borders. The growth of multinational corporations and the free flow of capital have placed constraints on states' ability to direct economic development and fashion social and economic policy. Finally, both to facilitate and to limit the more troubling effects of these developments, along with a range of other purposes, supranational organizations have emerged as a significant source of authority that, at least to some degree, place limits on state sovereignty. It is too early to tell for certain, but recent US action in Afghanistan and Iraq suggest that sovereignty will be further constrained in the fight against transnational terrorism.

The Protection of Human Rights

The United Nations Charter contains a contradiction that has become ever more troublesome,e particularly after the end of the Cold War. On the one hand, the Charter contains clear defense of the territorial integrity of states, a reaction to Nazi aggression during World War II. At the same time, it also contains commitments to individual human rights and the rights of groups to self-determination. Conventions on genocide, torture, and the like restricted state behavior within its own borders. Regional organizations were articulating human rights principles as well. The growth of human rights law limits sovereignty by providing individuals rights vis-B-vis the state. However, in the context of the Cold War, US-Soviet rivalry paralyzed the Security Council and it rarely acted in defense of these principles.

At the same time, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) emerged in the 1960s-70s fighting for the cause of human rights. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch serve as watchdogs to publicize the human rights record of governments limiting state action in some ways.[4] The publicity is sometimes enough to alter state behavior. At other times, the information serves to prompt other states to apply diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and increasingly common to contemplate humanitarian intervention.

In the 1990s, the Security Council began to reinterpret the Charter to more frequently favor human rights over the protection of state sovereignty. Through a series of resolutions, the United Nations has justified intervention in the internal affairs of states without their acquiescence.[5] In cases such as Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the Security Council has gradually expanded the definition of international threats to peace and security to justify intervention in circumstances that would have been inconceivable in the past. At the same time, as these cases and Rwanda show, states are often only willing to risk their troops when there is some national interest at stake. There is also great reluctance to interpret any of these instances as precedent-setting as states fear they may be the target of intervention in the future.

Economic Globalization

For many, economic globalization places significant limits on the behavior of nation-states at present. For those who see the retreat of the nation-state, the growing power of unaccountable market forces and international organizations provokes calls for change.[6] As will be further elaborated below, the growth of multilateral institutions to manage the global economy constrains state action.[7] The increasing mobility of capital has led states to pursue increasingly similar policies along the neo-liberal model.[8] Given the intensification of global competition, government spending and revenue-generation are increasingly constrained.[9] While some do not go so far as to declare the end of the welfare state, many see a worldwide convergence toward a more limited welfare state.[10] Others find that, while the tasks of the state may be changing, the state very much remains the key driver of globalization processes.[11] That is not to say that all states have equal influence in the process. Nor can the outcomes be reduced to strictly positive or negative because the multitude of processes involved impact different states in different ways.[12]

Supranational Organizations

Given the emergence of a whole range of transborder issues from economic globalization to the environment to terrorism, one of the key discussions surrounds whether the nation-state is obsolete as the best form of political organization to deal with these problems. Economic and social processes increasingly fail to conform to nation-state borders, making it increasingly difficult for states to control their territory, a central component of sovereignty. This raises important questions about the proper site of political authority. As governance structures are established at the global level to deal with the growing number of global problems, debate has ensued as to how to make these arrangements accountable and democratic.

Many organizations are state-based, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or the European Union. Therefore, in principle, states are firmly in control and any ceding of sovereign authority is in their interest to do so. However, bureaucracies, once established, often seek to carve out additional authority for themselves. States also may find functional benefit in ceding authority to supranational organizations.[13]
What is more, a whole range of private organizations have emerged to infringe on sovereign authority as well. In addition to human rights NGOs discussed above, global civil society organizations have emerged around numerous issues. Civil society groups have had a growing, yet uneven, effect on nation-states and international organizations.[14] In addition, as economic interdependence grows, private governance arrangements, such as the Bank for International Settlements, are also becoming more prevalent.[15] Private security organizations even conduct war on behalf of states, whether as mercenaries in western African civil wars or as contractors to the US military around the world.[16]

Together all of this suggests that the concept of sovereignty is under considerable pressure. Some aspects of sovereignty still exist and are honored in most circumstances, but many inroads are being made into state authority by many actors in many different circumstances. Where this will lead has yet to be determined

 

[4sarge]

UN Seeks New Environmental Treaty
by Cheryl K. Chumley (October 10, 2004)​

Article address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=3973
​

Summary: The idea of ceding authority to the global government is never one that should be taken lightly, but in the field of environmental matters, especially, the United States has already granted more power and oversight to the United Nations than is healthful for maintenance of our economy, sovereignty and free-market, capitalistic system.
[CapMag.com]Forty: That's the number of global and regional legal documents already in existence that dictate what actions can and cannot be taken regarding the world's forests.


Forty-one: That's the number the United Nations hopes to reach via a new treaty on forestry preservation by 2005.

"International Experts Meet to Consider Legal Options for Managing World's Forests," a press release from the United Nations blared, shortly before the Sept. 7 through 10 New York gathering of 70 in the U.N. Forum on Forests, to which the United States is affiliated. Evidently, the 19 global and 21 regional contracts already in effect that deal, at least in part, with forests are not adequate to stave off what the United Nations perceives as wanton destruction of land; to the list that now includes the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Tropical Timber Agreement, the Convention to Combat Desertification and the Convention on Climate Change, must come yet another.

"All the 19 global instruments deal with forests only as part of another agenda or cover only part of the world," said UNFF's Pekka Patosaari, in justification for creation of Treaty Number 20.

But as far as America is concerned, this explanation should be dismissed as flimsy. The idea of ceding authority to the global government is never one that should be taken lightly, but in the field of environmental matters, especially, the United States has already granted more power and oversight to the United Nations than is healthful for maintenance of our economy, sovereignty and free-market, capitalistic system. For instance, of the four treaties listed above, the United States has ratified three -- and this is the gist of what we have so far forfeited.

The International Tropical Timber Agreement, which the United States signed on July 1, 1994 and accepted on Nov. 14, 1996, basically gives control of the world's timber market to the global body. Overseeing production, sales, imports and exports, according to this treaty, is the International Tropical Timber Organization and its ruling council members, the latter of whom are granted authority to set new rules regarding the timber market and also to disburse the quota of votes each participating nation receives that will dictate the future influence and focus of this treaty. America is a consumer and holds 51 votes, behind Japan, at 320 votes and Korea, with 97, and also behind producers Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil, which hold 170, 139 and 133 votes, respectively.
Not very capitalistic-sounding, is it?

On Oct. 14, 1994, the United States signed the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, and ratified it six years later, in November, with several declarations. Though opting out of the more anti-sovereign aspects of this treaty -- namely, those sections granting dispute settlement authority to the International Court of Justice, placing funding mandates on participating nations and requiring land management plans be submitted to the global body for approval -- the United States nonetheless committed to the document's spirit of international collaboration by pledging to develop "cooperation among all levels of government communities, non-governmental organizations and landholders to establish a better understanding of the nature and value of land and scarce water resources in affected areas and to work towards their sustainable use."

In other words, the United States declined to submit land management plans to the United Nations, but at the same time, pledged to the United Nations that land management plans will be pushed at the community and local levels.

In the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United States signed on June 12, 1992 and ratified on Oct. 15, 1992, participating nations are committed to, among a slew of other requirements, "promote sustainable management … of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including biomass, forests and oceans…"

Aside from the pure mess this treaty has created in terms of attacking our country's ability to develop unencumbered by global law and to produce in line with free market principle -- not to mention the doors for further U.N. encroachment that opened with the treaty's offspring, the Kyoto Protocol -- this section quoted from Article Four proves America is already bound to preserve and manage the nation's forests. The question then is this: Why should we consider creating, signing and ratifying yet another global contract?

Forty seems a good, round number. Besides, it doesn't seem likely that if 40 can't do the job, the 41st would prove any more effective.

 

[4sarge]

UN Disabilities Treaty Would Limit U.S. Sovereignty

HUMAN RIGHTS

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

On July 30th, in a move that could limit the ability of the U.S. to decide domestic social policy in a free and democratic manner, Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the “Convention”) at the request of President Obama. Though the Senate must still ratify the treaty for it to come into force, many human rights activists are applauding the President’s action as reasserting the United States’ leadership role in the area of human rights. However, proponents of the treaty fail to acknowledge the Convention’s potential to usurp national sovereignty by requiring the U.S. to conform domestic laws to UN-mandated human rights standards.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force in April 2008 (for more information, please see the April 10, 2008 Global Governance Watch post). The treaty outlines specific rights that all States party to the Convention must guarantee to persons living with “long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments,” including a right to inclusion in the community; a right to personal mobility; a right to inclusion in education systems; a right to health insurance and disability-specific health care; a right to “social protection;” and a right to participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport. In addition to the main text, States can also sign on to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which allows individuals living within the State in question to bring complaints of rights violations directly before the Committee after they have exhausted all available domestic remedies.

The Convention is interpreted and implemented by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the “Committee”). The Committee consists of 12 experts to whom States party to the Convention must report every four years regarding domestic implementation of the Convention. The Committee evaluates each State’s report and makes suggestions and general recommendations for improved implementation of the Convention.

The signing of this treaty represents President Obama’s first concrete step towards ceding U.S. democratic decision-making power to the international community. As is evidenced by the actions of other UN treaty implementation committees (for example, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), unelected UN experts often strongly criticize advanced democracies for shortcomings in the implementation of vaguely defined human rights. This is one reason why the George W. Bush Administration refused to sign the treaty, as it felt that U.S. domestic policies were “among the most comprehensive civil rights laws protecting the rights [of persons] with disabilities in this world,” and that these democratically agreed upon policies did not need to be regulated by the international community.

By having the Convention signed and encouraging the Senate to ratify the document, President Obama is giving the UN the authority to critique U.S. social policy and demand legislative changes in a process that bypasses deliberative democratic policy-making. Further, in subjecting the United States to regular UN scrutiny of domestic policies, the President is agreeing to abide by the UN’s arbitrary interpretation of “emerging” rights. In essence, President Obama is recommending that unelected UN officials, not United States citizens, be vested with the right to define the U.S. policy agenda and hold lawmakers accountable for their decisions.

 

[Panama]

Why is it I state simple facts and you reply with this? One would be hard pressed to find a single government agency (or nongovernment for that matter) without skeletons like you just posted. I'm simply giving facts about the agency as a whole. I'm not stating that UN is the be all, end all or that everything about it is positive. For one, it has become increasingly too large to handle the tasks it was originally designed for. It is complex and inefficient. In the same token, to say that the UN is without its benefits and successes would be completely false.

My "UN" thoughts;

Let me just be direct in my own personal thinking, I am not going to beat around the bush, cite any facts or figures, just simply state my personal feelings.

If a giant UFO were to sweep down on the city of New York and vaporize the UN tomorrow, I would only be disappointed in the fact that it took them far too long to get here and help rid us of this multinational leech on the American society.

[FONT=&quot]Also, if it wouldn’t too much to ask of our new friends, there is a large number of UN minded “thinkers” that they could take back to wherever it is they came from for further experimentations![/FONT]

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

GLENN BECK EVEN SAID IT!!!!

8:30 FOR THE TIME!!!!!!!

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

 

[Johnny C]

It should be pretty obvious to everyone that we cannot rely on our elected officials to do right by us.

Too many people "vote" for their personal desires instead of what is best for their country or state.

Our officials pander to folks just to get re-elected, I dont care if they are Repubs or Dems, there arent too many that are worth a s*it anymore.

An unfortunate side effect of Democracy....and fill me in, aren't we a Republic?

We need a million man march on DC with barrels of tar and sacks of feathers!

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

EVERY BODY WATCH GLENN BECK HE IS TALKING ABOUT IT BIT BY BIT AND IS GOING TO DO AN EPISODE ON IT VERY SOON!!!

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

he is talking about it right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[4sarge]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmfXczSGR7w"]YouTube - L.O.S.T and United States sovereignty[/ame]

 

[SamAdams]

Sounds like BS to me. Needs to be independently verified from a variety of sources. And, what makes him a Climate Change Expert? It has always amazed me how people think a British accent is a sign of intelligence and a Southern accent is a sign of stupidity. Anyways, I think this is probably BS and is just another case of trolling.

What amazes me is how people bash others without verifying that what they say is incorrect. In other words, if you don't believe what he is saying, then look it up for yourself before you open your mouth (or in this case keyboard). It tends to save oneself from eating crow!