20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN treaty (updated)

By: Anthony Martin - Examiner.com - July 9, 2012

Upon the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama has confirmed his intention to sign two controversial U.N. treaties -- the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the so called "small arms" treaty.

Although many citizens and elected representatives are sounding the alarm about the small arms treaty, such as this entry Sunday at the Daily Paul, some political observers note that the treaty is unlikely to pass the Senate. But a very different scenario is developing for the Law of the Sea.

Twenty Republican senators are set to join with Democrats in upholding LOST.

In a breaking update, 2 of the 20 Republican senators have now indicated they will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. One political activist stated that it is important for citizens to call the offices of all 20 to make sure those Senators are on the record with their intent to vote against the treaty. McConnell and Toomey now state they will vote no.

The U.S. Constitution grants authority to presidents to enter into treaty agreements with other nations and entities. But due to the fact that a treaty, if approved, becomes the law of the land, the U.S. Senate must approve by an exact two-thirds majority rather than the simple supermajority of 60 votes. This means that 67 votes are needed in the Senate to approve a treaty.

Most political observers believe that all 53 Democrats in the Senate will vote to approve LOST. And if the 20 Republicans who have failed to indicate opposition to the treaty hold firm, the Senate will have more than the required 67 votes to pass.

The 20 Republicans who are apparently set to uphold the treaty are Enzi, McConnell, Hutchison, Toomey, Johanns, Ayotte, Graham, McCain, Lugar, Kirk, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Isakson, Grassley, Portman, Corker, Cochran, Brown, and Alexander.

In 1983 President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST outright due to encroachments on U.S. sovereignty. Thus, the question arises as to why these 20 Republicans would be indicating support for a treaty that Reagan saw as an international attempt to usurp American sovereignty and thus supersede the U.S. Constitution.

The small arms treaty, on the other hand, is facing a much more difficult task in gaining the approval of the Senate. Although it is possible to muster 67 votes to approve, too many Democrats are facing reelection in states where gun rights are important. Democrats now have a 53 seat majority. Even if all of the Democrats voted in favor, 14 Republicans would have to join them in order for the measure to pass.

In an election year during a period of time in U.S. history when citizens have indicated in various ways that they oppose any more gun control in any form, it is difficult to imagine 14 Republicans voting in favor of such a treaty.

But as indicated by Forbes Magazine such assumptions are premature. Some senators are always loathe to oppose any treaty signed by a president for the fear of negatively impacting U.S. prestige on the international stage.

Thus, conservatives have sounded the alarm about the treaty to make sure citizens pressure their senators to vote no.

A look at some of the provisions of the treaty will reveal why many conservatives are alarmed. By international law all citizens in the United States would find it more difficult to purchase firearms due to tough registration and licensing requirements. The sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms would be banned. And an international registry of gun owners would be created, which many gun rights enthusiasts view as a precursor to a worldwide ban on gun ownership.

Using the United Nations to enact strict gun control measures on Americans could be what Obama meant when he stated months ago that his administration is working on gun control "under the radar."

Related: 

UN Treaty, Sea Treaty, Gun Treaty… What Are We to Do?

Obama Seeks US Congressional Ratification of UN Global Gun Control Treaty

Urgent Alert: Law of the Sea Treaty

STAND-UP AMERICA!! TIME IS RUNING OUT!

h/t to Victoria Baer

==> GO HERE to find your US Senators. <==

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil;  God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to  speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act."  Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Technorati Tags: LOST,United Nations,UN,alert,Law of the Sea Treaty,treaties,UN treaties,small arms treaty,soveriegnty,stand-up America,wake-up America,globalist,Obama's Agenda,call your Senator

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty In Secret

Obama, Clinton work in secret to surrender U.S. sovereignty

American Free Press:

By Victor Thorn

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On Feb. 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.” Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order?

Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries.

Not surprisingly, a leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village..., she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.”

These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable. Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.”

Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”

A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Today, America is not on board, but this situation may change if Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order.

LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space.

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ”

The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.”

Globalist Treaties Terrible for America

By Victor Thorn

During a May 10 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Becky Fenger, a political columnist for Arizona’s Sonoran News, voiced her concerns to this writer in regard to a rash of globalist treaties being negotiated by the current administration.

“What are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?” asked Mrs. Fenger. “I can’t understand why they would willingly hand over power to the UN. How can you reason with these people when it seems like they’ve lost their minds?”

When questioned about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fenger replied: “Do you know how detrimental they are to our nation? We used to worry about communism and those who wanted to take over the U.S. But now we’re surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, which is filled with petty dictators. America should get out of the UN, since we pay the bulk of dues and always get voted against anyway.”

According to Mrs. Fenger, the dangers facing us are monumental.

“These treaties become the equivalent of law,” she said, “and it’ll take 161 countries to release us from them. Worse, I’m not sure if Congress is even aware of what’s going on, or if they understand how binding these treaties are.”

She continued: “Look at the ICC. Aggression is described as going to war without UN approval, which includes Russia and China. What kind of mind thinks that succumbing to this is a good idea?”

Mrs. Fenger next addressed one of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite pet projects.

“Hillary said it takes a village, not a parent, to raise children,” she said. “Their goal is really to get these little minds and teach them from infancy to love global government dictatorship. But why should we relinquish parental control when it’s been a guiding light throughout history? They want to disintegrate the family unit and replace it with government. It’s unconscionable. Our personal liberties have always frightened them, so their goal is to take freedom out of the hands of every individual.”

AFP broached the subject of Obama’s increasing use of executive orders.

“I used to think that a law couldn’t pass if it was unconstitutional, but what about eminent domain and the Kelo decision?” she asked. “I’ve lost all faith in what used to be known as common sense and following the Constitution. Obama has proved he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.”

The Kelo case refers to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling which found that private entities can take property for a price from private individuals who do not want to give it up if the private company can argue that the property will be used for the common good. Specifically, the case involved a house owned by Susette Kelo in New London, Conn. As it turns out, a developer bought Mrs. Kelo’s house, even though she didn’t want to move. After all the homes in the area had been bulldozed, however, funding for the developer’s project fell through, and the town was forced to take it over. It is now a landfill.

AFP also spoke with author Brandon Pierce, author of a novel about the Bilderberg group entitled Crisis Point.

He agreed, telling this writer on May 11, “Americans could be tried in a world court even after they’ve been acquitted in the U.S. It has a direct effect on all of us when an international body can decide what happens to our leaders and citizens.”

Is Hillary or Barack Wearing the Pants in the White House?

By Victor Thorn

Is Secretary of State and one-time Bilderberg attendee Hillary Clinton the shadow president of the United States, just as it was claimed she was de facto governor and president during her husband’s tenure in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.?

Doubters should be reminded of a Feb. 24, 2008 quote delivered by Barack Obama during a campaign stop in Loraine, Ohio. “She [Hillary] has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years.”

Obama knew full well of what he spoke. Journalist Scott Creighton’s Mar. 19, 2011 article, “President Hillary Clinton’s Shock and Awe,” began with this stark contrast. “While Hillary Clinton met with 22 world leaders to decide the fate of Libya, they kept Barack Obama in the back of the bus and let the real president take the lead.” Creighton also pointed out that while Obama golfed and vacationed, Hillary conferred with practically every world leader and dignitary imaginable.

A quick glance at the State Dept.’s travel itinerary reveals nearly 75 trips to foreign countries by Clinton where the real groundwork for a New World Order super-structure was being laid.

While some commentators call Hillary a “Globalist Grand Wizard,” her influence spread to the formation of Obama’s Cabinet after his 2008 election. In a March 18 article, Edward Ulrich wrote, “31 of the 47 people Barack Obama has named for appointments have ties to the Clinton administration, including Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner.”

To get a better idea of Hillary’s modus operandi, in a 2006 film entitled Inside Man, Hollywood actress Jodie Foster analyzed her character’s role in remedying delicate situations. “She’s a fixer, a rich Madison Avenue lawyer who fixes things when they go wrong. Say you were a mayor and you got caught in bed with three dead hookers, I would be brought in to fix the situation.” When asked how her character did it, Foster replied, “Call in lots of favors. You use people and kind of puppet behind the scenes, manipulate them. She’s a dubious bad guy.”

The above words perfectly describe Hillary Clinton’s entire political career. In fact, HILLARY (AND BILL) THE MURDER VOLUME contains the following passage. “Hillary acted as an enabler and fixer to cover-up for her husband’s serial philandering and sexual reign of terror.”

But being a handler for Bill’s raging libido was minor compared to Hillary’s role in trafficking drugs through Mena Airport, the cover-up of Vince Foster and Ron Brown’s murders, Chinagate, and laundering money through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to finance their campaigns.

Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she travels from country to country. According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.

During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

 

As Obama’s numbers and campaign donations drop… the rumblings of adding Hillary to the ticket as Veep… are growing louder!

For anyone out there that is cheering… You better do your homework!  Hillary is just as much of a Progressive (pro-U.N., pro-NWO) as Obama; she supports the Muslim Brotherhood (More at: Weiner Fallout).

Hillary was George Soros’ Darling before Obama was!!

Don’t believe that… Read: The Shadow Party

Other Good Books:

Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy-and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

When you find yourself quibbling over whether you can vote for a Mormon or wishing your 1st choice for GOP had won the nomination… consider the options above.  This is the choice!

Technorati Tags: parenting,Hillary Clinton,The Clintons,Chinagate,Obamaland,Bilderberg,CFR,Progressives,Progressive Movement,educate yourself,NWO,UN Small Arms Treaty,Weiner,the Shadow Party,globalists,George Soros,UNCRC,LOST,UN,Rights of the Child,ICC,sovereignty,wake-up America,Leon Panetta

China, the United States, and Global Governance: Shifting Foundations of World Order

First is a pdf file, with an excerpt then the article with the title in the subject line.

“China, the United States, and Global Governance: Shifting Foundations of World Order”

Workshop in Beijing, China  March 15 – 17, 2010

http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/CFR_CICIR_MeetingNote.pdf

Excerpt:

Prospects for effective multilateral cooperation on global and transnational problems in the twenty-first century will inevitably reflect the distinct national interests and international visions of the great powers. But the identity and number of the world’s leading states is changing, creating new challenges and opportunities for global governance. The world order that ultimately results from this transition period will reflect difficult negotiations between established powers—including the United States, European Union, and Japan—and emerging ones—including China, India, and Brazil.

Common World Order Visions?

Any discussion of divergences between American and Chinese global visions must begin with some historical perspective. Over the past four decades, China has shifted its foreign policy in a breathtak-ing fashion. Once a revolutionary power bent on overturning world order, China has become a prin-cipal beneficiary of globalization and a responsible member of most international regimes, from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Possessing a per-manent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and, since November 2008, a spot in the Group of 20 (G20), it is increasingly part of the global establishment. On balance, its aims tend to be modestly revisionist, focused on securing growing weight within international institutions (such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) and peacefully expanding its economic and politi-cal influence, particularly within Asia. Consistent with Chinese president Hu Jintao’s concept of a “harmonious world,” China places heavy emphasis on multilateralism—and especially the United Na-tions—as a necessary approach to the exercise of power. In some areas, particularly when it comes to national sovereignty and nonintervention, China has emerged as a more conservative power than the United States. This was especially clear during the administration of George W. Bush (20012009), when the United States—far from being a status quo power—embraced a doctrine of contingent sove-reignty.

Workshop participants perceived an ongoing, impressive shift of global power toward Asia (including China), particularly in the wake of the global financial crisis, and stressed the importance of navigating this delicate power transition in a smooth and peaceful manner.

The United States, meanwhile, enters the second decade of the new millennium with its continued global leadership role increasingly in doubt, thanks to the nation’s fiscal strains, U.S. public fatigue with fighting two large wars, and the evaporation of the bipartisan Cold War internationalist consen-sus. Given these domestic constraints, some U.S. participants anticipated a period of diminished U.S. global ambition, perhaps even retrenchment. Notwithstanding President Barack Obama’s commit-ment to international institutional reform, most anticipated that the United States would continue to pursue a mixed strategy of reliance on formal, treaty-based institutions and more ad hoc, flexible coali-tions composed of a smaller number of capable states to pursue its global agenda.

Much, much more at link.

CFR Convenes “Council of Councils” Linking Leading Foreign Policy Institutes From Around the World

http://www.cfr.org/global-governance/cfr-convenes-council-councils-linking-leading-foreign-policy-institutes-around-world/p27612

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has launched an international initiative to connect leading foreign policy institutes from around the world in a common conversation on issues of global governance and multilateral cooperation. The mission of the Council of Councils is to find common ground on shared threats, build support for innovative ideas, and inject remedies into the public debate and policymaking processes of member countries.

The founding membership of the Council of Councils includes leading institutions from nineteen countries, roughly tracking the composition of the Group of Twenty (G20). The network will facilitate candid, not-for-attribution dialogue and consensus building among influential opinion leaders from established and emerging nations.

CFR will convene the inaugural Council of Councils conference on March 12-13 in Washington, DC. Participants will tackle four major themes at this first gathering:

—the overall state of global governance and multilateral cooperation

—the status of the nuclear nonproliferation regime (with a focus on Iran)

—the dollar's future as the world's reserve currency

—the criteria for humanitarian intervention, in the wake of regime change in Libya and the ongoing crisis in Syria

Transcripts from two on-the-record sessions of the conference, featuring President of the World Bank Robert B. Zoellick and Undersecretary of State Robert D. Hormats, will be available on CFR.org after the event.

In addition to an annual conference, the Council of Councils will provide an ongoing exchange for research and policy collaboration among its members. CFR and its international partners will experiment with new technology, using state-of-the-art videoconferencing, wikis, and mobile platforms to collectively communicate and respond to breaking crises. The group will also consider long-term structural reforms that would enhance the global governance capacity of leading international institutions.

CFR President Richard N. Haass said, "The defining foreign policy challenges of the twenty-first century are global in nature. The Council of Councils draws on the best thinking from around the world to assess emerging threats and opportunities and formulate responses to them."

The Council of Councils initiative is funded by a generous grant from the Robina Foundation, as part of its ongoing support for CFR's International Institutions and Global Governance program.

Founding Council of Councils Member Organizations:
Australia: Lowy Institute for International Policy
Belgium: Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Brazil: Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV)
Canada: Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
China: Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS)
France: French Institute of International Relations (IFRI)
Germany: German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
Indonesia: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Israel: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Italy: Institute of International Affairs (IAI)

Japan: Genron NPO
Mexico: Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI)
Russia: Institute of Contemporary Development (INSOR)
Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)
South Africa: South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA)
South Korea: East Asia Institute (EAI)
Turkey: Global Relations Forum (GIF)

United Kingdom: Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs);
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
United States: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

***

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

CFR's International Institutions and Global Governance (IIGG) program aims to identify the institutional requirements for effective multilateral cooperation in the twenty-first century.

Related:

Globalist Imperial Network

OWS and the planned “endgame” for the U.S.

The Newt World Order… Worth a Look and Some Consideration

Kissinger in 2008:  There Will Be “Bi-Partisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever Is Elected President  -  They expected us to stay asleep and never counted on the tea party movement!

America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution

Brzezinski: Syria is Not Libya  -  Former Carter national security adviser and trusted Rockefeller minion Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated that military intervention in Syria will not work as it did in Libya. 

Panetta: ‘International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

Frightening… Secretary of Defense  Leon Panetta tells Congress that they will get International, UN and global permission to defend the nation and its allies… and then will go to Congress and ‘tell them’ what they are doing… Hello?!? 100% unconstitutional and anti-American.  Wake-up people… they are telling you that they are moving us toward and Global New World Order and away from sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.

If you understand what this means and love your country and your freedom… you must vote in November 2012 and you must vote against the present administration or our life as we know will perish… and that is not an exaggeration!

Panetta: ‘International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military

Video: Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria

Related:

He said what?!? Panetta & international permission

Sovereignty, schmovereignty! Defense Secretary Leon Panetta showed just how ridiculous the foreign policy of this administration is. He admitted he will seek international permission before congressional approval on matters of foreign military affairs. Fits right in with Barack’s lean-forward foreign policy. Glenn Beck had the audio and reaction on radio yesterday.

Breitbart TV Video: Panetta: 'International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

Who The Hell Do These People Think They Are?

Imagine you wake up tomorrow and this is not a Constitutional Republic anymore. It is now a dictatorship. Whoops! Already accomplished. Then imagine that you wake up tomorrow and the President and our elites have given away part of the US. Then imagine it was your state and your state and Senators weren’t even consulted on it. In fact the deal was conducted in secret. Well, the nightmare is alive and well and being finalized for Alaska. But, before you go cursing ONLY Obama (as I do every damn chance I get), you better have a really hard look at Progressives on both sides of the aisle. This monstrous act of treason started under Bush Senior in 1990 and was ratified by our Senate in 1991. The only thing holding it back was that Russia had not signed the treaty. Obama is now looking to finish the diabolical deal.

From Drink Your Kool Aid:

On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

I can hear you saying that this is only about some tiny little islands and that they are closer to Russia than the US – why should we care? These islands are not tiny. And the true issue here is that they have a wealth of oil and resources on and around them. That’s the big deal. Plus, they’re ours – not Russia’s.

Why now, when this treaty has languished for 22 years? Well… Why not? It accomplishes a number of things for Obama. It takes a slap at the conservative state of Alaska and attempts to put her high-profile residents such as Sarah Palin and Joe Miller in their collective places. It caves to one of our biggest enemies, Russia, and weakens the US even more in their eyes. It gives precious energy resources away for nothing, thereby ensuring that energy prices will skyrocket even more in the US when that energy is needed. And who knows what other nefarious goals the deed accomplishes. Progressives are always figuring an angle and it never benefits US citizens – just the elite and powerful.

From WND:

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

More:

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

In May of 1881, US explorers spotted the Jeannette and Henrietta Islands and claimed them for the United States. According to numerous sources, including the group State Department Watch, seven Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State, no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them. And of course, the Russians are claiming them for their own. The fight over Alaskan land has been going on since the 1800s and the Russians are claiming and taking any land anywhere they can find it that has oil or gas.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. They are getting ready to finalize the deal. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side with no input from Alaska, her leaders or her residents. How is that Constitutional? And don’t cite the Treaty Clause to me. This oversteps the bounds of that section by a wide margin. Thus the need for secrecy and no transparency on the deal. The founding fathers never envisioned a sitting President and the State Department just giving away American sovereign land.

And as far as a milquetoast, spineless Senate is concerned – every one of them that ratified this in 1991 that is still in office should be shown the door that leads to a rail out of town with a spiffy new coat of tar and feathers. This treaty makes an excellent argument for abolishing the 17th Amendment and returning to the true Constitutional principle in which senators were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote. This is what you get when you bastardize and supersede Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Who the hell do these people think they are? I’ll tell you… They truly believe they are the elite and that they are above your station – you are the riffraff, the serfs that only exist to serve them. They are royalty and their moniker is Progressive. They are the ruling class and the truly, obscenely wealthy and powerful. For too long we have let them rule as they see fit rather than by the will of the people. Obama is just the culmination of decades of inattention to the evil infiltrating our government’s halls. Time to send them all packing.

The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.

James Madison – The Federalist

That’s who they think they are; your King, your Lords, your Nobility. They don’t care what happened in 1787, they still think they own you.

By Terresa Monroe Hamilton  -  The NoisyRoom

U.S. Troops Wearing UN Colors - A Must Read

Written by Chuck Baldwin - Tuesday, 17 November 2009 10:37

According to a report in World Net Daily, "Troops in the United States' USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.

"The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the UN.

"It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit's service in North Africa in World War II."

The report also states, "The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif."

As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command "created to respond to national emergencies in North America." Readers should also be aware that the United States and Canada signed an agreement earlier this year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces of the other country during a "domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis." (Emphasis added.)

Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its sister organizations including the Bilderberger Group and the Trilateral Commission. This objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn't paying attention — or has an ulterior motive for denying it.

In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this burgeoning North American Union on my website. I encourage readers to review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it here.

Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR's Task Force report entitled "Creating a North American Community," which was issued just prior to the Waco gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge, oversight, or consent of the U.S. Congress — or any Canadian or Mexican legislative body either, for that matter.

As the WND report states, "The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives — 10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries."

In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush. (And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected last year.)

For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C., are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR's philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military command as USNORTHCOM — and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch — without the slightest protest from virtually any U.S. Congressman or Senator, demonstrates the apathy of Washington elitists regarding America's merger into a multinational governing structure.

Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education Association, along with the vast majority of America's top educational institutions, and even America's leading churchmen (for example, mega-church pastor and author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman, Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every major institution in America is betraying our country's sovereignty and independence.

Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President Obama's policy reversal to continue President Bush's plan allowing Mexican trucks to roll down U.S. highways? Where is Big Labor's opposition to Obama's decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?

Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar, the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear mongering over super-hyped "pandemics" such as the Swine Flu, the push for universal healthcare, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing U.S. sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.

Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously, an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grass-roots Tea Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.

If America's pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could — almost single-handedly — turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson's "spirit of resistance" alive.

As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.

This column is archived here. ©Chuck Baldwin - Baldwin: A Suggested Survival List and Beck: The List – What You Can Do To Prepare

Related:

Naming Names: Your Real Government – Important Read

Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government, and the Free Market

Shadow Government: How the Secret Global Elite Is Using Surveillance Against You

The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party

The Creature from Jekyll Island

Progressives In Congress and Commie Blaster.com

The Shadow Government

Council on Foreign Relations – Please Read

No more RINOS, no more re-treads, no more RNC candidates, no more CFR candidates, no more Communists, no more Fascists, no more Federal Reserve Bank.

The Last Stand: “On Your Knees or On Your Feet?”

The (Elitist) George Soros Connection to ‘Occupy Wall Street’ and the Destruction of America – OWS: The Largest Mass PSY OP in Human History?

Jobs Bill Force States to Surrender Sovereignty - Wake Up Governors!!

Section 376 of Obama’s tax and spend “jobs” bill ends state sovereignty, turns our Republic into a dictatorship and destroys the foundation upon which our country was built. The fundamental transformation of America is almost complete.

Read the bill. (Emphasis added)

“SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.

(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act.

(b) Waiver of State Immunity-

(1) IN GENERAL-

(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.

(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph, the term `program or activity’ has the meaning given the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).”

Here is the link to 42 USC 2000d-4a which defines “program or activity”:

“For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “program or activity” and the term “program” mean all of the operations of—

(1)
(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or

(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;”

Also…

“any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.”

The above is stated as an extension of the actual citation of the general section itself.

More from Section 376 (emphasis added):

“(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- With respect to a particular program or activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State first receives or uses Federal financial assistance for that program or activity.”

Wake up Governors!! Wake up America!! Tell Congress about Section 376 and why they must not pass this bill.

Obama’s tax and spend “jobs” bill is a stealth move to end state sovereignty and transform what made our nation the greatest country the world has ever known. If Obama’s bill passes, kiss freedom goodbye and say hello to tyranny.

The American Form of Government

Reference:

42 USC 2000d-4a which defines “program or activity”

By: AJ for NoisyRoom  -  Contributor: Toddy Littman

Related: 

American Jobs Act:  “The Illegal Alien & Unemployment Rights Act”

President’s Weekly Address: “Pass my Bill”, Love Me, “Pass my Bill”, Love Me, “Pass My Bill”….