Where We Create & Share Music, Talk Radio Shows, Conservative
Posted by Woody Pendleton
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR
Dick Morris: Obama Poised to Betray America Through 4 United Nations Treaties
Could
Obama really be on the verge of making our worst conspiracy theory
nightmares about a “new world order” come true, under the radar, while
most people are focused on the primaries? Dick Morris is sounding the
alarm about four utterly heinous UN treaties that are currently under
consideration by the Obama administration that would surrender our
sovereignty, cede power to go to war to the UN, enact gun control, and
tell us how to raise our children, if ratified by the Senate. These are
treaties that the Bush administration and even Clinton administration
would never have considered, but as the most radical administration in
American history enters it’s last year, all stars are in alignment for
it to happen.
Here is some additional information about the treaties under consideration:
The International Criminal Court:
In a series of articles (see here, here, and here, The New American
revealed the campaign for the ICC as a colossal bait and switch scam.
While proponents were selling the ICC as the institution that would haul
the Hitlers and Stalins of the world before the bar of justice, what
they were actually building is a global judicial monster that violates
all the major principles of separation of powers, checks and balances,
and accountability. In spite of their incessant prattling about
dedication to “transparency,” the globalists have been obdurately
opaque about key features of the ICC, such as:
No right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers; No right to habeas
corpus; No right to bail; No right to a speedy trial; No protection
against indefinite pre-trial detention; No protection against being
transported to foreign lands
CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE
America’s top constitutional champions have rightly denounced the
ICC. As we reported in 1998: Dr. Charles Rice, professor of law at Notre
Dame University, has termed the ICC “a monster,” both in concept and
reality, noting that it effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence and cancels the 4th
of July.” “In our system,” Professor Rice explains, “law is supposed to
be a rule of reason which, in a sense, controls the state and compels
the state to operate under the law.” But the super-jurisdictional ICC,
he points out, has no legitimate basis for its claimed authority, no
protections against abuses, no accountability, and virtually no limits
to its jurisdiction. “What are the limits on the ICC?” he asks, and then
answers, “There are none. It’s insane!” As news of this ICC criminal
insanity became more widely known, the U.S. Congress was deluged with
letters, e-mails, faxes, phone calls, and petitions opposing it. It was
obvious that the Senate would not ratify the Rome Statute. The Clinton
administration, which, only months previously had been so confident of
ratification, did not even send the treaty to the Senate.
The Law of the Sea Treaty:
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Law of the
Sea: UNCLOS—sometimes called the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (or
LOST)—established a comprehensive legal regime for navigation and
international management of oceanic resources, including the deep
seabed. President Reagan Refused to Sign: President Ronald Reagan
announced that he would not sign UNCLOS shortly after it was adopted in
1982. Reagan stated several objections to it, most of which dealt with
its provisions on deep seabed mining. Reagan did, however, support the
navigational provisions of UNCLOS, which reflected the customary
international law of the sea. The U.S. Has Much to Lose … Another
Unaccountable International Bureaucracy: UNCLOS establishes the
International Seabed Authority (ISA), a new U.N.-style bureaucracy
located in Kingston, Jamaica. As only one of more than 160 countries in
the ISA, the U.S. would have limited authority over its decisions
regarding the deep seabed. Just like the U.N. General Assembly,
proceedings at the ISA would be dominated by anti-U.S. interests.
Redistribution of U.S. Wealth to the “Developing World”: The U.S.
currently enjoys full sovereignty over its entire continental shelf. It
can claim all its mineral resources (e.g., oil and gas) and can collect
royalty revenue from oil and gas companies for exploitation. If the U.S.
joined UNCLOS, Article 82 would require the U.S. to transfer a
significant portion of any such royalties to the ISA for
“redistribution” to the so-called developing world, including corrupt
and despotic regimes. Mandatory Dispute Resolution: Under Part XV, the
U.S. would be required to engage in mandatory dispute resolution for any
claim brought against it by another member of UNCLOS. This may open the
U.S. to any number of specious allegations brought by opportunistic
nations, including allegations of environmental degradation or polluting
the ocean environment with carbon emissions or even from land-based
sources. U.S. Economic Interests at Risk: UNCLOS claims the deep seabed
resources of the oceans as “the common heritage of mankind” and forbids
mining unless permission is first received by the ISA, which, of course,
takes into account the interests of “developing states” regarding the
exploitation of those resources. UNCLOS encourages technology transfers
from advanced mining companies to support the mining activities by
developing states, which is likely to discourage U.S. companies from
participating in such activities. The Convention Was Not “Fixed” in
1994: During the early 1990s the deep seabed mining provisions of UNCLOS
were renegotiated in the “1994 Agreement.” This addendum to the
convention was signed by the Clinton Administration in July 1994. While
the 1994 Agreement improved many provisions of the convention, it did
not secure “veto” power for the U.S. over the decisions of the ISA.
Small Arms Treaty: While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed
by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force
the U.S. to: Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional
bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership. Confiscate and
destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by
our government of course). Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of
all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they
still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as
revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp). Create
an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale
gun confiscation. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in
the process, providing license for the federal government to assert
preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth
Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights. U.N. Convention on
the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): The UNCRC is an international treaty
focused on promoting the rights of children and seeking to give children
priority in the implementation of governmental measures. The Convention
claims to offer a road map that will guide government officials in the
improvement of laws and policies, by defining which rights the
government should give to children.
A VEILED THREAT
Since its introduction in 1989, the Convention has been ratified by
every nation in the world except for the United States and Somalia. The
CRC was signed by President Clinton in 1995, but early opposition in the
Senate persuaded Clinton not to submit the treaty to the Senate for
ratification. The Senators who opposed the CRC in 1995 believed that the
Convention marked a significant departure from the American concept of
the relationship between state and child, and was incompatible with the
right of parents to raise their children. These concerns stem from the
CRC’s repeated emphasis on two principles that should guide all
decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of
the child” and the child’s “evolving capacities.” These two principles
are the “umbrella principles underlining the exercise of all the rights
in the Convention.”
The following sections explain why these two principles will, if
implemented, jeopardize the vital role of parents within the American
family.
WHAT IS REALLY “BEST FOR THE CHILD”?
The “Best Interests of the Child” Article 3 of the CRC states that
“in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or
private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall
be a primary consideration.” Thus, policies affecting children at all
levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest
as the primary concern. The problem for families occurs when this
principle surfaces as a guiding principle for parents. Article 18(1) of
the CRC states that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians,
have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of
the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”
A DEPARTURE FROM AMERICAN LAW
But the Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a
sharp break from American law. In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that “the ‘best interests of the child’ is not
the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their
custody.” In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck
down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child
were made “solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best
interests,” without regard to the wishes of the parent. The Court’s
decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American
family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best
interests of their children. Indeed, “United States case law is replete
with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their
children,” ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of
personal injury compensation. Thus, except in cases where a parent has
been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is
acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s
decision. The Convention, in contrast, supplants this traditional
presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the
state. People need to start raising a ruckus over this or as Dick Morris
noted, the United States may not be able to survive another ten months
of this regime.
Scridb filter
No comments:
Post a Comment