Discussion:
Beware of (Bill) Clinton's "Web" of Treaties
(too old to reply)
Crimes And Clintons
2015-12-09 02:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Speech prepared for delivery to Christian Coalition's Road to
Victory
Washington, D.C. — September 18, 1998

Some people think that President Bill Clinton is only interested
in power and women. That's not true. He has a very definite and
specific global agenda.

Bill Clinton made a major address to the United Nations General
Assembly in September 1997. He spoke with gusto about what he
called "this new global era" and "the emerging international
system." Then he used an amazing metaphor: he said he is taking
America into a "web of institutions and arrangements" to set
"the international ground rules for the 21st century." He
identified the treaties that will take us into this web: the
World Trade Organization, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the
NATO Expansion Treaty, and the Global Warming Treaty.

Clinton said that "the forces of global integration are a great
tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things."
Then he described our troops lost in a crash of a UN helicopter
in Bosnia as "citizens of the world." Those men signed up to
serve in the American armed forces. Who made them "citizens of
the world"?

The following month, Bill Clinton went to Argentina, where he
said: I'm trying to promote a "reorganization of the world" into
a "global system." He said he wants "to build a global system"
by merging "integrated economies and integrated democracies."

The American people do not want our economy integrated with
corrupt, bankrupt regimes where people work for wages of 25 or
50 cents an hour. We do not want to integrate our U.S. democracy
with countries built on totalitarianism and terror, without any
constitutional rights. Americans absolutely do not want to be
integrated into a global system.

When Bill Clinton became President, he surrounded himself with
people who seek to reorganize America into a global system. His
chief foreign policy adviser is Strobe Talbott, who was
Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate and fellow draft dodger.
Talbott wrote in Time Magazine that "national sovereignty wasn't
such a great idea." He rejoiced in the coming "birth of the
Global Nation" where "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete,
all states will recognize a single, global authority."

Bill Clinton knows that, if he proposed world government, the
American people would reject it out of hand. So he is trying to
tie us into world government incrementally, one step at a time.
It's like the story about the frog. If you drop him in boiling
water, he will jump right out. But if you put him in cold water
and then bring the pot to a boil, you will have cooked frog.

Bill Clinton, Strobe Talbott, and Madeleine Albright are moving
us incrementally into a network of global organizations, each of
which will exercise control over Americans in a different area:
(1) human behavior, (2) our economic life, (3) our private
property, and (4) our armed services. The mechanisms to
accomplish this global network are treaties, international
conferences, executive orders, executive-branch power over
federal agencies, and assignment of our armed services.

Two treaties that were written to regulate human behavior were
rejected by Presidents Reagan and Bush, but have become pet
projects of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright.

The United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child would set
up a broad array of children's rights against their parents. The
treaty would give children the right to "rest and leisure." Does
that mean that, when you tell Billy to clean up his room and
carry out the garbage, he can say, "I have my UN right to rest
and leisure"? Does this treaty mean that, when you tell Sally to
turn off the television and do her homework, she can say, "Oh,
no, I have my UN right to get information from the media of my
choice"? Article 43 sets up a Committee on the Rights of the
Child consisting of ten "experts" to monitor compliance. Do you
want UN "experts" monitoring the way you raise your children?

The United Nations Treaty on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination Against Women purports to govern political,
economic, social, cultural, and civil areas, plus "customs and
practices," "social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and
women." This treaty would require us to follow UN dictates about
"family education" and feminist dictates about revision of
textbooks.

Clinton called a news conference to announce that he is
"embarrassed" that the U.S. has never ratified this UN treaty.
This is the same man who is not embarrassed by Paula or Monica.

However, the Clinton Administration is trying to implement this
unratified treaty anyway through the UN World Conference on
Women held in Beijing in 1995. Hillary Clinton was the star
speaker and Madeleine Albright was the chairman of the U.S.
delegation. Soon after the feminists returned from China in
1995, Madeleine Albright spelled out the goals in a document
called "Bring Beijing Home." That is a plan to implement the pro-
abortion feminist agenda through a federal entity composed of
high-level representatives from 30 federal agencies, writing on
White House letterhead.

A third treaty to regulate human behavior is the International
Criminal Court Treaty adopted this year in Rome. This court will
have power to try individuals, including Americans, in foreign
courts where there is no due process or trial by jury. Even
though the United States didn't sign or ratify this treaty, it's
a direct threat to all our service personnel stationed overseas.

The most important of the Clinton's treaties designed to
regulate our nation's economic life is the Global Warming Treaty
agreed to by Al Gore in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This
treaty would bind the United States to reduce our energy
emissions to 7% below our 1990 levels.

Energy is the basis of our high standard of living. Such a
reduction would cost us a million jobs and massive disruptions
in the American economy. These drastic cutbacks would be
enforced by big tax increases on gasoline, home fuel, and
electricity.

Meanwhile, China, India, Mexico, and 100 other developing
nations would have no limitations at all. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to see that U.S. fossil-fuel-burning plants
would move out of the United States to countries where there are
no such restrictions. And, of course, that's the purpose: to
distribute our wealth to the Third World.

This devastating reduction in our standard of living would take
place on the basis of "global warming" predictions that are no
more reliable than the weatherman's guess of how much snow will
fall in the next 30 years. The only warming that is taking place
comes out of the mouths of the politicians, such as Clinton's
State of the Union Message, which is why we call this the Hot
Air Treaty.

Another treaty designed to control our economic life, the Law of
the Sea Treaty was emphatically rejected by President Reagan in
the 1980s. This is a scheme to force American businesses to sink
billions of investment dollars down on the ocean floor, and then
turn the seabed's riches over to a global commission. All
decisions would be made by Third World countries, which
contributed nothing to the tremendous investment necessary to
bring those riches to the surface.

The treaties designed to take over the management of large areas
of American land and drastically reduce our property rights
usually masquerade under the pretense of protecting the
environment. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio produced the
Biodiversity Treaty, which planned to set aside buffer zones and
corridors connecting habitat areas where human use by Americans
would be severely restricted. It would subject U.S. property
owners to international review and regulation.

President Bush refused to sign the Biodiversity Treaty. However,
Al Gore persuaded Bill Clinton to sign it, and they tried to ram
it through the Senate in 1994. The good news is that, due to the
action of alert patriots, the Senate rejected it. The bad news
is that the Clinton Administration is implementing it anyway in
three ways, claiming that we must "fulfill existing
international obligations." But we don't have any international
obligations because the Senate never ratified.

First, the Clinton Administration has already put 47 large areas
of land, called "Biosphere Reserves," under control of the UN
and prohibited development in these areas. The area involved is
larger than the state of Colorado.

Second, Clinton issued an Executive Order called the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative under which he took over 10 rivers
this year, putting hundreds of thousands of acres along the
banks of the rivers under control of federal regulators with
full authority. This Rivers project is a direct threat to our
private property rights guaranteed in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th
Amendments.

Third, Clinton is also trying to implement the unratified
Biodiversity Treaty through the President's Council on
Sustainable Development. It is busy developing curriculum for
the schools.

The World Heritage Treaty of 1972 granted special powers to the
corrupt UN agency called UNESCO to designate selected American
treasures as World Heritage sites and develop regulations and
policies concerning their use. The United States doesn't even
belong to UNESCO because Ronald Reagan pulled us out of it.
Nevertheless, 20 World Heritage Sites have already been claimed
and marked by UNESCO, including Yosemite National Park,
Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Canyon, and even the Statue
of Liberty and Independence Hall. I visited Independence Hall
and saw the big bronze UNESCO plaque impudently asserting that
this sacred site -- where the Declaration of Independence was
signed and our Constitution was written -- belongs to "the
common inheritance of all mankind."

Other UN conferences have been thinking up other ways to coopt
American wealth for global purposes. The 1995 UN World Summit
for Social Development, held in Copenhagen, Denmark, discussed
imposing a global tax to give the UN its own flow of money
independent of Congressional appropriations. The UN wants a
global tax on all international financial transactions,
international airline tickets, aviation freight, cruises,
aviation fuel, communications satellites, and international
postal items.

Clinton is planning on submitting an ABM Expansion Treaty, which
would lock us forever into the policy of never building the
Strategic Defense Initiative that Ronald Reagan advocated and
which is so necessary to protect our people from missile
attacks. Communist China has 13 ICBMs targeted on U.S. cities
today, and who knows what North Korea, Iraq and Iran will do.

The Clinton Administration is also pursuing its global goals by
putting our national security, including our armed services,
under global control so that the United States will be locked
into a perpetual interventionist policy under which American
servicemen and women will be sent to faraway places to fight
never-ending foreign wars disguised as "peacekeeping" operations.

In May 1994, Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive, PDD
25, the most unconstitutional transfer of power in American
history. In PDD 25, Clinton asserted his authority "to place
U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign
commander" and under the United Nations rules of engagement.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration ordered American troops to
go on a so-called "peacekeeping" expedition to Macedonia wearing
the United Nations uniform. When Army Specialist Michael New
protested that this order was illegal because it conflicted with
his oath to the U.S. Constitution, he was court-martialed. His
conviction was a watershed event on the way to transferring
control over our armed services to global command.

When American soldiers were killed over Iraq, Vice President Al
Gore told their widows and orphans that "they died in the
service of the United Nations." That wasn't a slip of the
tongue; his words reveal the Clinton Administration's plan to
use our armed forces as UN mercenaries all over the world at the
whim of UN bureaucrats. We do not want American service
personnel serving in UN uniforms under UN or NATO commanders.

The Ronald Reagan vision of military strategy was firmly
grounded in the principle of "peace through strength," that is,
America should have more weapons than any possible enemy so that
no bad guys would dare to attack us. It worked -- Reagan ended
the Cold War without firing a shot!

The Clinton policy is just the opposite; Clinton wants to be
involved in foreign conflicts. Time Magazine described Madeleine
Albright as having a "passion for American activism." Colin
Powell wrote in his autobiography that, when he was chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, Madeleine Albright told him, "What's the point
of having this superb military you're always talking about if we
can't use it?"

Clinton persuaded the Senate this year to ratify the NATO
Expansion Treaty. It commits America to defend borders in
Eastern Europe that people have been fighting over for hundreds
of years.

Bosnia is the perfect example of the future the Clinton
globalists have in store for us. Clinton has no exit strategy
for Bosnia because he has no plans ever to exit. Clinton's goal
is permanent intervention in foreign conflicts, using Bosnia as
the model and NATO as the mechanism to preempt Congress. Why?
Because Clinton and his advisers all believe in U.S.
interventionism in foreign, particularly European, conflicts as
a permanent feature of U.S. policy.

If you want to know more about Clinton's global goals, you
should see Eagle Forum's remarkable new video called "Global
Governance: The Quiet War Against American Independence." I hope
this video will help us to find leaders who will stand up for
the independence and sovereignty of the United States of America.

Global treaties and conferences are a direct threat to every
American citizen. They are an assault on our right to raise and
educate our children as we see fit. They are an attack on our
energy consumption, our private property, and our national
treasures. They are an attack on our pocketbooks because, if the
UN ever gets taxing power, there is no limit to how much power
and money it can grab. They are an attack on our standard of
living because their goal is to steal American wealth and
transfer it to the rest of the world.

Global treaties and conferences are an assault on the soul and
sovereignty of America because they mean that young American men
and women will be sent around the world, again and again, on
phony "peacekeeping" expeditions. Clinton is determined to keep
America on an interventionist course despite the opposition of
the American people. It's called "global leadership," which
means that our armed services will serve as global policemen and
global social workers, while the U.S. taxpayers will play global
sugar daddy.

The Senate should reject all UN treaties out of hand. Every
single one would reduce our rights, freedom and sovereignty.
That goes for treaties on the child, women, an international
court, the sea, trade, biodiversity, global warming, and
heritage sites. Americans are not willing to be ruled by Bill
Clinton's global web, or by Strobe Talbott's "global nation," or
by any United Nations treaties or conferences.

We all know that the Kingdom of God will prevail some day. But
there is no evidence that, when the Lord says "seek first the
Kingdom of God," he's really telling us to look for it in the
United Nations.

Our Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution
are the fountainhead of the freedom and prosperity Americans
enjoy. We Americans have a constitutional republic so unique, so
precious, so successful that it would be total folly to put our
necks in a yoke with any other nation. St. Paul warns us (II Cor
6.14): "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And
what communion hath light with darkness?" The principles of
life, liberty and property must not be joined with the
principles of genocide, totalitarianism, socialism, and
religious persecution. We cannot trust agreements or treaties
with infidels.

The remarkable group of men who founded the United States of
America talked about our Constitution as a miracle. They
believed that God's hand was on us, leading us to victory in the
war that established our independence and helping them to set up
a framework of government under which freedom, religion and
prosperity could flourish. God's people must not allow ourselves
to become yoked with unbelievers. This rule applies to nations
as well as individuals. Our great American principles of life,
liberty and property must not be compromised by being put under
foreign bureaucracies where the majority of nations reject God,
self-government, and commit the most grievous persecution of all
religions.

George Washington warned us in his Farewell Address: "It is our
true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any
portion of the foreign world." It's time to heed his warning and
to adopt his words at the original Constitutional Convention:
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can
repair; the event is in the hands of God."

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/EO/cc_speech.html
One Party System
2015-12-09 06:24:43 UTC
Permalink
"Crimes And Clintons" <***@hillaryclinton.com> wrote in news:***@dizum.com:
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.

And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.

Booker T. Washington
David Johnston
2015-12-16 06:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
One Party System
2015-12-16 13:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
I would expect a dishonest progressive to argue that is my position. Which
is pretty much why progressives can't be reasoned with.
--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.

Booker T. Washington
David Johnston
2015-12-19 04:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by One Party System
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going
to
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
I would expect a dishonest progressive to argue that is my position.
What is your position? What treaty do you find so intolerable that you
want to overthrow the American government over it?
PaxPerPoten
2015-12-19 08:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going
to
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
I would expect a dishonest progressive to argue that is my position.
What is your position? What treaty do you find so intolerable that you
want to overthrow the American government over it?
A civil; war in America would trigger a UN response to rape and Pillage
America. If you insist on a civil war..First nuke the fookin UN. You do
know that Billy-Bob Klinton made a move to be the King of the UN after
he went out of office? You can bet yer ass that King-Coon-Obama plans
the same move. Just more Affirmative action..ya know..
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
David Johnston
2015-12-19 08:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going
to
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
I would expect a dishonest progressive to argue that is my position.
What is your position? What treaty do you find so intolerable that you
want to overthrow the American government over it?
A civil; war in America would trigger a UN response to rape and Pillage
America.
In the real world the UN has no such capability.
PaxPerPoten
2015-12-19 09:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going
to
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
I would expect a dishonest progressive to argue that is my position.
What is your position? What treaty do you find so intolerable that you
want to overthrow the American government over it?
A civil; war in America would trigger a UN response to rape and Pillage
America.
In the real world the UN has no such capability.
Obviously ..your real world is in an alternate universe. Because it sure
as hell is not here. The UN owns our Military. Do you think that the
remaining Security council members..Russia, China.et aL wouldn't jump at
the opportunity to rid the world of their primary pain in the ass?
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
David Johnston
2015-12-19 19:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going
to
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
I would expect a dishonest progressive to argue that is my position.
What is your position? What treaty do you find so intolerable that you
want to overthrow the American government over it?
A civil; war in America would trigger a UN response to rape and Pillage
America.
In the real world the UN has no such capability.
Obviously ..your real world is in an alternate universe. Because it sure
as hell is not here. The UN owns our Military.
No. It doesn't.

Do you think that the
Post by PaxPerPoten
remaining Security council members..Russia, China.et aL wouldn't jump at
the opportunity to rid the world of their primary pain in the ass?
If the United States was in the middle of a civil war caused by outrage
over the existence of the United Nations, Britain would have no need to
eliminate the United States. It would have already eliminated itself.
PaxPerPoten
2015-12-16 23:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government? I don't think so. The
Senate Kept us out of the Corrupt league of Nations, but screwed up big
time by letting the Corrupt Democrats suck us into the very corrupt and
very expensive UN. Note please that Corrupt and Democrat are virtually
the same word. You are aware that with some 200 nations or more, we in
America still pay the Lions share of UN's budget..And most of that is
for useless officials salaries.
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
David Johnston
2015-12-19 04:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government?
The civil war wouldn't be against the UN. It would be against the
American government.
PaxPerPoten
2015-12-19 08:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government?
Replacing the guts of what you idiotically snipped:

So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government? I don't think so. The
Senate Kept us out of the Corrupt league of Nations, but screwed up big
time by letting the Corrupt Democrats suck us into the very corrupt and
very expensive UN. Note please that Corrupt and Democrat are virtually
the same word. You are aware that with some 200 nations or more, we in
America still pay the Lions share of UN's budget..And most of that is
for useless officials salaries.
Post by David Johnston
The civil war wouldn't be against the UN. It would be against the
American government.
The UN would use an American Civil war to pillage and overthrow anything
you could dream up to run America. The George Soros et al would be your
new masters.
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
David Johnston
2015-12-19 08:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government?
Why wouldn't I snip it? It has nothing to do with the question.
Post by PaxPerPoten
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government? I don't think so. The
Senate Kept us out of the Corrupt league of Nations, but screwed up big
time by letting the Corrupt Democrats suck us into the very corrupt and
very expensive UN. Note please that Corrupt and Democrat are virtually
the same word. You are aware that with some 200 nations or more, we in
America still pay the Lions share of UN's budget..And most of that is
for useless officials salaries.
Post by David Johnston
The civil war wouldn't be against the UN. It would be against the
American government.
The UN would use an American Civil war to pillage and overthrow anything
you could dream up to run America.
In the real world the UN has no capability to do that.
PaxPerPoten
2015-12-19 09:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government?
Why wouldn't I snip it? It has nothing to do with the question.
You have a very narrow and ignorant idea of what the question entails.
A civil war is far reaching and guts a country of the ability to protect
itself from outside intervention. America has many enemies and with the
last 4 presidents..I doubt that we have even one real friend left. The
Democrats signed away our rights to the UN in 1948. Eisenhower
emplaced the War powers act that held the UN at bay from commanding our
Military. That SOB Klinton After all these years ..His first act in
office was to executive order the cessation of the Emergency war powers
act. He also destroyed the Copper Industry by executive ordering the
transfer of all Arizona copper mines to national park system. Obama is
virtually doing the same thing with the Global warming bullshit and CO2.
Thus destroying the Coal industry and taking a huge bite out of the
petrochemical and oil industry. They are now working to stop gasohol
subsidies which will damage the farmers. Can you see one positive thing
that is moving us toward improving our economy.. ?
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government? I don't think so. The
Senate Kept us out of the Corrupt league of Nations, but screwed up big
time by letting the Corrupt Democrats suck us into the very corrupt and
very expensive UN. Note please that Corrupt and Democrat are virtually
the same word. You are aware that with some 200 nations or more, we in
America still pay the Lions share of UN's budget..And most of that is
for useless officials salaries.
Post by David Johnston
The civil war wouldn't be against the UN. It would be against the
American government.
The UN would use an American Civil war to pillage and overthrow anything
you could dream up to run America.
In the real world the UN has no capability to do that.
Bullshit... Wake up sonny and watch it happen.
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
David Johnston
2015-12-19 19:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by David Johnston
Post by One Party System
If we the people did not agree, we are not bound.
And if we need a civil war to make the point, so be it. The UN is going to
make a spectacular bonfire.
So you'd overthrow the government to protect your right to use children
for sweatshop labour?
So? To you the Very corrupt UN is our Government?
Why wouldn't I snip it? It has nothing to do with the question.
You have a very narrow and ignorant idea of what the question entails.
A civil war is far reaching and guts a country of the ability to protect
itself from outside intervention.
That's nice but doesn't explain why the United States should have a
civil war over the UN.

Mitchell Holman
2015-12-09 14:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crimes And Clintons
Speech prepared for delivery to Christian Coalition's Road to
Victory
Washington, D.C. — September 18, 1998
Some people think that President Bill Clinton is only interested
in power and women. That's not true. He has a very definite and
specific global agenda.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from
blasting every mention of Bush with "you are just stuck in
the past" and "he isn't president now, get over it" to post
rants about what Bill Clinton did as president.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2015-12-09 14:32:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 08:23:09 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Crimes And Clintons
Speech prepared for delivery to Christian Coalition's Road to
Victory
Washington, D.C. — September 18, 1998
Some people think that President Bill Clinton is only interested
in power and women. That's not true. He has a very definite and
specific global agenda.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from
blasting every mention of Bush with "you are just stuck in
the past" and "he isn't president now, get over it" to post
rants about what Bill Clinton did as president.
So in other words, Leftists and the GOP are basically the same.

Tell us something we don't already know.
David Johnston
2015-12-09 21:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crimes And Clintons
Speech prepared for delivery to Christian Coalition's Road to
Victory
Washington, D.C. — September 18, 1998
Some people think that President Bill Clinton is only interested
in power and women. That's not true. He has a very definite and
specific global agenda.
Bill Clinton made a major address to the United Nations General
Assembly in September 1997. He spoke with gusto about what he
called "this new global era" and "the emerging international
system." Then he used an amazing metaphor: he said he is taking
America into a "web of institutions and arrangements" to set
"the international ground rules for the 21st century." He
identified the treaties that will take us into this web: the
World Trade Organization, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the
NATO Expansion Treaty, and the Global Warming Treaty.
Clinton said that "the forces of global integration are a great
tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things."
Then he described our troops lost in a crash of a UN helicopter
in Bosnia as "citizens of the world." Those men signed up to
serve in the American armed forces. Who made them "citizens of
the world"?
The following month, Bill Clinton went to Argentina, where he
said: I'm trying to promote a "reorganization of the world" into
a "global system." He said he wants "to build a global system"
by merging "integrated economies and integrated democracies."
The American people do not want our economy integrated with
corrupt, bankrupt regimes where people work for wages of 25 or
50 cents an hour. We do not want to integrate our U.S. democracy
with countries built on totalitarianism and terror, without any
constitutional rights. Americans absolutely do not want to be
integrated into a global system.
When Bill Clinton became President, he surrounded himself with
people who seek to reorganize America into a global system. His
chief foreign policy adviser is Strobe Talbott, who was
Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate and fellow draft dodger.
Talbott wrote in Time Magazine that "national sovereignty wasn't
such a great idea." He rejoiced in the coming "birth of the
Global Nation" where "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete,
all states will recognize a single, global authority."
Bill Clinton knows that, if he proposed world government, the
American people would reject it out of hand. So he is trying to
tie us into world government incrementally, one step at a time.
It's like the story about the frog. If you drop him in boiling
water, he will jump right out. But if you put him in cold water
and then bring the pot to a boil, you will have cooked frog.
Bill Clinton, Strobe Talbott, and Madeleine Albright are moving
us incrementally into a network of global organizations, each of
(1) human behavior, (2) our economic life, (3) our private
property, and (4) our armed services. The mechanisms to
accomplish this global network are treaties, international
conferences, executive orders, executive-branch power over
federal agencies, and assignment of our armed services.
Two treaties that were written to regulate human behavior were
rejected by Presidents Reagan and Bush, but have become pet
projects of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright.
The United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child would set
up a broad array of children's rights against their parents. The
treaty would give children the right to "rest and leisure." Does
that mean that, when you tell Billy to clean up his room and
carry out the garbage, he can say, "I have my UN right to rest
and leisure"?
No, moron. It means than when you try to put him to work 14/7, he can
say "I have a right to rest and leisure"
Loading...