Obozo wants to put our Navy under the jurisdiction of the UN.

[raven818]

I don't have a link yet. I'm listening to Fox, they're interviewing Bolton. He said......

bHo is wanting to put our Navy and Maritime folks under the jurisdiction of an international court ( Boltons talking with Huckabee ).

This "treaty" will put us in alongside another 100 nations and reduce, immediately, our national sovereignty, and make us answerable to the UN's code of conduct...including making us do away with OUR countrys death penalty.

And OUR Navy's actions, as to right or wrong, would be decided in the UN's court?????????????

WTF??????????

[jack404]

thats how the UN works , they tell you to go , then they hold the courts where the mongrels who they sent you against , get to sue you ,

like the Khmer Rougue

the top folks there are gonna walk , its taken 20+ years to bring them to trial and now the trials are failing , but we where still fighting that war when the UN called me and mine war criminals with the help of a socialist fag called Bob Brown who later became head of the greens here and deputy Prime minister ...

that was until the facts came out .. the killing fields , the various secret agreements between the KR and the UN and USA and others , they played every side , they scammed everyone , and now no-one wants to admit they helped them so the trials will go nowhere ....

but they'd have nailed our hides to the wall if it was not for that independant french journalist getting these truth out ...

thats what you'll be up against ...

dont let em do it

get out of the UN folks

NOW!!!!

[bobski]

never happen.

[H-D]

Originally Posted by bobski

never happen.

hope youre right

[jack404]

and i remember when it was thought impossible for nazi's and communists to be legal in the USA ...

you have 15 of the original 29 banned CPA members as CZARs or other government functionaries today ...

[Skipper]

Good article from 2007



http://www.dailypaul.com/5440/the-la...st-sovereignty

[jack404]

big change from then eh ?? now instead of being against it , obozo and crew are all for it ...

[raven818]

What scares me most is, it includes banning capital punishment. The fact that the ban is in the treaty isn't what bothers me. It's whatever else is in the treaty that Bolton didn't have time to discuss.

Remember, there a " treaty " in the UN that will ban all personal ownership of weapons. I can't say one way or the other whether or not this is the same treaty, but...

But the " never happen " can happen easily. This treaty, if like the other, doesn't require anything else but the prez's signature.

It would be political suicide for him to sign either one ( unless they're the same ) until after the election. Or......if there is an election. I know that's an extreme out-there scenario, but I have never been "afraid" of a president before, and I am afraid of this man and all of his People. We could be destroyed over night. If not now, later.

The Pen is far mightier than the sword.

Jack only gave one example of how easy it is.

Spooky for sure.

[dons2346]

Is there anything this idiot is not willing to give away?

[jedwil]

Treaties require more than a Presidential signature.

[22WRF]

We have to at least get the Senate back this year.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Note it is "Other Countries" Not the UN.

[raven818]

Originally Posted by jedwil

Treaties require more than a Presidential signature.

When the chat was going on about the treaty with the UN that would ban private gun ownership, that treaty ONLY required the signature of the president, nobody else. He would be " signing " on in agreement to the UN's already existing treaty.

[norahc]

Originally Posted by jedwil

Treaties require more than a Presidential signature.

True, but look what he is saying and has said about ACTA and TPP. Both are treaties, but he doesn't think Congressional approval is necessary because he will implement them via Executive Order.

And don't kid yourselves...the Navy is not the only thing he wants to put under the control of the U.N.

[Redhand]

More Agenda 21 BS being shoved up the ole' back door. Imagine all our grey ships being painted UN blue and our swabbies and jarheads dressed in pink and green uniforms. I recently noticed a sign posted in a state park that says it is a federal offense to discharge any type of waste,litter into any stream,river,lake or within 150' of the shoreline. That sure covers alot of territory and what happened to state sovereignty? More of our FREEDOMS being eroded by incrementalisn at the local level and ascending to the Fuderal level,all in the name of and under the guise of being sustainable and green for the children. Control the water and you control the world until GOD unleashes his mighty flaming sword and creates a global warming that none will survive but all will be changed according to his omnipotent power and his WILL be done.

[raven818]

If anyone's interested in looking at the existing " issue " that the UN has with Small Arms possession by civilians, here's a days worth of reading. I've only touched on whats available at the site, here's a small portion of the propaganda:

Small Arms

Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower. The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world.

A worldwide scourge

The illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere. Mobs terrorizing a neighbourhood. Rebels attacking civilians or peacekeepers. Drug lords randomly killing law enforcers or anyone else interfering with their illegal businesses. Bandits hijacking humanitarian aid convoys. In all continents, uncontrolled small arms form a persisting problem.

Weapons of choice

Small arms are cheap, light, and easy to handle, transport and conceal. A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive accumulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.

Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare.

Small arms and the UN

Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety and they have an interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. So they should ensure that small arms from Government stocks or from private ownership are not misused and do not enter illicit circuits, where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty.

To attain those goals, within the UN, countries have agreed on several commitments on small arms control: the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action on small arms - including an Instrument on marking and tracing - and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

The topic of small arms comes up in other discussions as well. Countries are giving separate attention to closely related issues, such as armed violence, child soldiers, the protection of civilians in armed conflict, ammunition, the arms trade treaty and the UN register of conventional arms.

Two links. The first is the UN Office For Disarmament Affairs:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

The second is the UN Program Of Action ( coordinating action in small arms ).

Click on UNIDAR ( united nations institute for disarmament research ):
http://www.poa-iss.org/CASA/CASA.aspx

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by raven818

When the chat was going on about the treaty with the UN that would ban private gun ownership, that treaty ONLY required the signature of the president, nobody else. He would be " signing " on in agreement to the UN's already existing treaty.

I have never read that anywhere.
http://www.usnews.com/news/washingto...control-treaty

[armoredman]

What's terrifying is that only a little more than half the US Senators signed the opposition letter. These means that the others have already violated their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, with their willingness to subject and submit the Constitution and the American people to domination by foreign powers, powers that freely demonstrated with sworn enemies of the land such as Iran, and have provided aid and succor to same, as shown by the Iran Army Day video.
I have asked my state elected officials to resurrect the anti-UN resolution to override the Governor's veto.