Danger - Danger Will Robinson
With Hurricane Katrina still in the minds of all of us we tend to overlook some of the side agendas that are swirling about. Both of the two below have to do with giving away sovereignty to "world laws".
Pressure to sign the Kyoto Treaty because of Global Warming. Despite many scientists proving that the "solar magnetic cycle" is the cause of this warming, and you can see from this article/proof that Gore and his other "Chicken Little" friends are all wet, these "blame America" folks just don't give up.
ICC - The International Criminal Court. This is a real biggie. Imagine you are just getting off the airplane in Germany for a nice vacation after you retired from the military and you are immediately arrested for "war crimes", taken to jail with no civil liberties like a phone call to your lawyer because you will be tried under a International Criminal Court with none of the Constitutional protections because the world is now the Judge and Jury and not U.S. law and justice.
Sound far-fetched? Not if some of the "One World" viewers like Ginsburg, Kennedy, etc. get their way.
These "One World" or "New World Order" folks believe that many/most wars are started only because of National Goals and if there were no "nations", but rather one Nation representing the whole world, then there would be no need for greed, or national goals because the whole world would "share the wealth" of all nations.
Giving up our sovereignty is the worst thing for keeping our freedom that could ever happen.
From the Dangers article:
One, they include the repeal of all laws condemning homosexual sodomy.
Two, the legalisation of same-sex marriages.
Three, mandatory and graphic sexual training for children.
She has three paragraphs on the last of these. She says the training has to include instruction, beginning when the child's at the age of 10, on how to engage in sexual intercourse with members of the same sex. Since this will of necessity be graphic, she says, "such materials should be exempted from pornography and obscenity laws".
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 8:30 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Just wait until Bill Rodham, I mean Bill Clinton ascends to Sec. Gen. of the UN. With that pulpit from which to preach his one world views, the media and the left will start the full court press.
Will the ACLU fight to keep our sovereign rights? Not a chance.
YC,
Nope, you are exactly right on the ACLU, they will vote with the World view.
FAR.
Or Billary's desire to be revered as the next Mother Theresa as she enjoys her seat at the UN...
makes my hair hurt!
good post by the way! Interesting and scary at the same time.
fj,
If Hillary wins, Bill will become the "First Lady."
FAR.
If world laws are irrelevant, why did the US use the UN to impose sanctions on Iraq for 10 years? Why did GW use the UN weapons inspectors as the rouse to attack an otherwise sovereign nation?
It seems like the US government (Democrat & Republican) talks out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to the international community. The endless flip flops are pschizophrenic.
ii,
UN resolutions are not irrelavent, just the idea of a World Court.
There is a big difference. I personally don't like the U.N., but then if it was used correctly, it could be an organization that could do some good.
When we are talking about having U.S. citizens tried in Court in some other country, that is not the same as imposing sactions on a country.
FAR.
So, do you disagree with the war crimes tribunals that were set up for the Germans, the Serbs, etc.?
By your logic, it seems that those people should have been tried under the laws of their own countries.
Spies, and Prisoners of War, are one catagory of criminals. After a war is over, it is O.K. to bring to justice those prisioners that we captured who broke the "rules of war" such as the Geneva Conventions.
What we Can't have is to have a U.S. Citizen being arrested in Canada or Germany for what they consider wrong doing in some other country. Extradition Laws are appropriate and proper, but not the reverse.
If I do something wrong in the U.S., then I don't want to be tried in some World Court without the exceptional due process we have that makes us unique.
FAR.
Has an American citizen ever been convicted by the World Court for something that he did in the U.S.?
I know the U.S. is the only country to ever be convicted of terrorism by the ICC because of Reagan's follies with death squads and bombings in Nicaragua. But those activities happened in Nicaragua (and sort of in the U.S. for training the death squads here).
Why shouldn't a US citizen who is in another country be tried in that country for crimes there? The U.S. tries foreign citizens here all the time (Mexico being the most obvious example).
I agree with being tried in the country that the crime was committed.
What I am worried about is if a Crime was committed in the U.S. and then the World Court would try the case in another Country.
Don't think it has happened yet, but then we haven't signed up as one of the 60 nations yet either as agreeing with it, which is my main concern in the future. (Especially with a Lib in the Presidents chair like Hillary.)
FAR.
Have you read the jurisdiction provisions of the world court charter? I am curious how they are worded. I would be shocked if any country would hand over one of its citizens for trial on a crime committed domestically.
ii,
I don't think at this time it is a problem, but many are pushing for that juristriction.
Here is their website.
FAR.
Here's what I found from that link relating to jurisdiction. It doesn't seem very troubling.
"Within their respective fields of jurisdiction, institutions such as the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg would be entitled to hear such disputes.
This is not the case, however, with the ICJ, to which no case can be submitted unless both applicant and respondent are States. Despite various proposals and even the existence of a treaty providing for the possibility of proceedings before the Court between an international agency and a State, neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized agencies can be a party in contentious proceedings before the ICJ. As for private interests, these can only form the subject of proceedings in the International Court of Justice if a State, relying on international law, takes up the case of one of its nationals and invokes against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the latter's hands, the dispute thus becoming one between States."
What do you think?
ii,
I must admit that the quote about jurisdiction sounds O.K., but there are those of us in the free world that worry about "One World" groups pushing for a "global" justice system, in which nationalism is outlawed for the "greater good."
Problem is the "greater good" is their synonym for "bringing the spoiled rich kids, (The citizes of the U.S.A.), down to their knees."
I also must admit that my study of scriptures makes me worry about the future of a World Court and a World Ruler.
FAR.
Doesn't it seem to you that GW is trying to be the world ruler?
Who are the "one worlders"? What is the big deal about an international body that adjudicates disputes between states? In these times of globalization, it's necessary.
ii,
There are many opinions of just who these people and/or organizations are, Here is a fairly level headed piece on it's goals and foundations.
Many will attempt to destroy it's legitimate place in normal discussion by trying to place it in the "fanatic" rehlm of "Conspiracy Theories" thus destroying any rational discourse.
Do a search on "New World Order" for all of the crazy "Conspiracy" theories if you want to go there, but for me, suffice it to say that there is enough public discourse on it by national figures like Presidents, etc, to make it worthy of observation and inspection.
FAR.
Post a Comment
<< Home