ANOTHER Reason to GET RID of the U.N. on American Soil……When did the U.S. give up our Sovereignty?

=================

==========================

The Global Socialists at the United Nations are now telling America what to do?

It is TIME for the United States to defund and get rid of the United Nations on U.S. soil.

Progressive President Woodrow Wilson stated this mess.  It is TIME we put a stop to this madness.

The United Nations has proven to be a corrupt enterprise that is easily manipulated by Russia and China, are proponents of the “Climate Change Scam”, are ineffective against many nations, corruption of the “oil for food program’, etc.  WHY should the United States continue to fund this entity with

**********************

The name “United Nations”, coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

States first established international organizations to cooperate on specific matters. The International Telecommunication Union was founded in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, and the Universal Postal Union was established in 1874. Both are now United Nations specialized agencies.

In 1899, the International Peace Conference was held in The Hague to elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare. It adopted the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes and established the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which began work in 1902.

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles “to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security.” The International Labour Organization was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.

SOURCE

====================

The estimated cost of all UN Peacekeeping operations from 1948 to June 2010 amounts to about $69 billion.

The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping operations in 2011-2012 [A/64/220] PDF Document are:

  1. United States (27.14%)
  2. Japan (12.53%)
  3. United Kingdom (8.15%)
  4. Germany (8.02%)
  5. France (7.55%)
  6. Italy (5.00%)
  7. China (3.93%)<<<<Note THIS!
  8. Canada (3.21%)
  9. Spain (3.18%)
  10. Republic of Korea (2.26%)

Many countries have also voluntarily made additional resources available to support UN Peacekeeping efforts on a non-reimbursable basis in the form of transportation, supplies, personnel and financial contributions above and beyond their assessed share of peacekeeping costs.

Although the payment of peacekeeping assessments is mandatory, as of 30 September 2012, Member States owed approximately $2.07 billion in current and back peacekeeping dues.

SOURCE

***Common sense here:  WHERE is Russia’s contribution?  It is amazing the Russia and China hold enormous VETO power on any actions by the United Nations general assembly, yet they contribute less than other countries in the United Naitons.**

=========================

Now the Global Progressives/Marxists/Socialists want to monitor the United States Presidential Elections in 2012?

The state of Texas tells them to mind their own business and get out of their elections.

The United Nations response?

International vote monitors warn Texas: Don’t mess with us

AUSTIN (REUTERS) – International election monitors took a dim view on Wednesday of Texas’ threat to prosecute them if they observe voting in the state a bit too closely on Nov. 6.

The exchange pitted the Vienna-based human rights watchdog Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe against Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who warned the OSCE not to interfere with polling in state elections.

“The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarcic, director of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) monitoring arm, said in a statement.

“The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.” Mr Abbott told Reuters on Wednesday.

==================

ADDITIONAL REPORTING:

International vote monitors warn Texas: Don’t mess with us

By Michael Shields and Corrie MacLaggan  (Reuters)

October 24, 2012

VIENNA/AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) – International election monitors took a dim view on Wednesday of Texas’ threat to prosecute them if they observe voting in the state a bit too closely on November 6.

The exchange pitted the Vienna-based human rights watchdog Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe against Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who warned the OSCE not to interfere with polling in state elections.

“The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarcic, director of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) monitoring arm, said in a statement.

“The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

Abbott told Reuters on Wednesday that he is considering legal action against the group if it doesn’t concede that it will follow the state’s laws.

“They act like they may not be subject to Texas law and our goal all along is to make clear to them that when they’re in Texas, they’re subject to Texas law, and we’re not giving them an exemption,” he said.

Abbott is skeptical about why the group wants to look at elections in Texas.

“Our concern is that this isn’t some benign observation but something intended to be far more prying and maybe even an attempt to suppress voter integrity,” he said.

In a letter on Tuesday to the Warsaw-based ODIHR, Abbott had noted that OSCE representatives were not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place.

“It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law,” he added.

He cited reports that OSCE monitors had met with organizations challenging voter identification laws. Texas’ voter ID law was blocked earlier this year by a federal court, and Abbott has said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional,” Abbott wrote.

Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade also wrote to the United Nations-affiliated OSCE/ODIHR on Tuesday, saying that it’s key for Texans to understand that the organization has no jurisdiction over the state.

Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry tweeted on Tuesday: ‏”No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @TXsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue.”

The 56-member OSCE routinely sends monitors to elections and noted November’s elections would be the sixth U.S. vote that ODIHR has observed “without incident” since 2002.

For next month’s elections it has a core team of 13 experts from 10 OSCE countries based in Washington and 44 long-term observers deployed across the country, it said.

Lenarcic had shared his “grave concern” about the threat of Texas prosecutions with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the OSCE said.

“Our observers are required to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way,” Lenarcic said. “They are in the United States to observe these elections, not to interfere in them.”

(Reporting By Michael Shields and Corrie MacLaggan; Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols and Jim Forsyth)

SOURCE

==============================================

RELATED LINK:

Since WHEN does an International Group have the RIGHT to Interfere With Legislation in the United States Sovereignty?

Excerpt:

Amnesty International Warns U.S. States Against Passing Anti-union Laws

March 19, 2011

by: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Originally posted at Amnesty.org

Amnesty International has urged several US states to abandon planned legislation that would drastically restrict workers’ rights.

States including Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee have proposed bills severely limiting the collective bargaining rights of trade union members. A similar bill was passed in Wisconsin on Friday.

“State governors must withdraw support for these measures which, if adopted, would violate international law,” said Shane Enright, Amnesty International’s trade union adviser.

“The US has an obligation to uphold the rights of American workers – including the specific right to organize and bargain collectively.”

===============================

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regards to sustainable development. It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de JaneiroBrazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. The “21” in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st century. It has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences.

Agenda 21 in the United States

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is not a treaty, the Senate was unable to hold a formal debate or vote on it, nor was it ratified in any way by the executive branch. Several congressmen and senators, however, have spoken in Congress in support of Agenda 21; these include Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, and Senator Harry Reid.[10] Locally across the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that broadly helps implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States boasts nearly half of the ICLEI’s global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level.[6] As a first-world country, the United States features one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports.[11]

Opposition in the United States

During the last decade, opposition grew to some aspects of Agenda 21 within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels. The Republican National Committee have adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, while the Republican Party platform states that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty”.[12][13] Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21.[14][15][16][17][3][18] Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21, while Arizona failed to pass a similar bill.[4]

Activists, attributed to the Tea Party movement by the The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have claimed that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights.[3] Columnists in The Atlantic have linked Agenda 21 opposition to the property rights movement in the United States.[19][18] A poll by the American Planning Association of 1,300 US votes found that 9% percent supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.[18]

SOURCE

=========================

Agenda 21 For Dummies

Link to video

========================

Will YOU watch this and actually PAY ATTENTION?

Play this video over and over until it sinks in!

“Changing the Conversation”

Link to video

=============================

Americans need to LEARN about the United Nations and Agenda 21 AS WELL as DICED.

Agenda 21, Project 60, Sustainable Growth: Worldwide Socialism via the United Nations. CHANGE the CONVERSATION

***************

Does the New ‘White House Rural Council’ Equate to UN’s Agenda 21?

******************

Feds buying up farmland they flooded; Soros in on it

******************

Beware of THIS word…..”Sustainability”. Agenda 21 Marches on….

****************

AGENDA 21 UPDATE: FAMILY FARMS ARE UNDER ATTACK

************

UN’s Agenda 21 Equals Organized ‘Snitching’

==============================

DICED: Agenda 21 on Steroids. What Americans Should Know about Global Socialism Right Under Our Noses. Is Obama Complicit or Just Following Marching Orders from the Shadow Party?

Has the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Biderberg Group become more powerful through this “Nudging” of Americans  and Manipulating Americans towards Global Socialism? (Through Executive Orders signed by our President).

READ, THINK and Awaken Americans:

From Canada Free Press:

Control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control

DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

March 20, 2012

I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. Some call the Draft Covenant “Agenda 21 on steroids” while others see it as the “Environmental Constitution of global governance.”

The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

In collaboration with Earth Charter (*Note see LINK below) and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).

The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations.  They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)

The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”

  • Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
  • Article 11 discusses “equity” and “equitable manner” which are code words for communism.
  • Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
  • Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
  • Article 31 requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
  • Article 32 requires recycling.
  • Article 33 demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.”
  • Article 33 delineates long-term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity of the environment.”
  • Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
  • Article 36 describes military and hostile activities.
  • Article 39 decides management plans and quotas for permissible taking or “harvesting transboundary biological resources.”
  • Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.
    “Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.
    “Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
  • Article 48 demands that biotechnology from research and development and royalties be shared; free access and transfer of technology is also required.
  • Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
  • Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by an arbitrary tribunal such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
  • Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

Writers of the Draft Covenant are the UN Secretariat, international lawyers, and U.S. professors from Cornell, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, University of the Pacific, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and two attorneys in private practice.

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a world constitution for global governance, an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

LINK

**Emphasis added***

Source:
Debbie Coffey—Agenda 21 on Steroids

==================================

==========================

World “Sustainability”, controlling our population in America and the World.  Carol Browner, the former Obama’s “Global Warming Czar”. Until late 2008 Browner was a member of Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society. Our current Science Czar for Obama is John Holdren advocates EUGENICS.

==========================

============================

Related Links:  Suggest YOU read every one of them.

Obama’s NEWEST Executive Order:

President Obama Signs Executive Order Allowing for Control Over All US Resources. Is the Center for American Progress the Shadow Party that Controls Obama?

Remember Carol Browner, the Obama Czar that was into World Sustainability?  She now is at the Center for American Progress.

Mr. “Green” Czar (avowed Communist) Van Jones is now at the Center for American Progress.

Anna Burger of SEIU now at Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Andy Stern of SEIU connected to the Center for American Progress

**********************

Is the Center for American Progress ACTUALLY the Soros funded “Shadow Party”? Does Obama actually Follow CAP’s Instructions?

*******************************

Remember the SHADOW PARTY was originated by George Soros, HILLARY CLINTON and Harold Ickes.

*********************

===========================

=====================================

Remember these words: “The world as it is; and the world as it should be”

Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky.  Barack Obama learned and practices the tactics and strategies of Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky was an admirer and practitioner of the tactics and strategies of Antonio Gramsci:

Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of  Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish.

**************

Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obama referred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech:

“She said, ‘Barack stood up that day,’ talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, ‘and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is‘ and ‘The world as it should be…’ And, ‘All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be.”

Do you wonder who — or whose values — should determine what “the world… should be?”

SOURCE

=========================

====================

Democrats vs. Republicans

Democrat Agenda: Progressivism/Marxism/Socialism and tyranny

VS.

Republican Agenda: American Liberty and the FREEDOM to CHOOSE.

==========================

“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

 -Samuel Adams”

=====================

 

Eagle I will fight socialism

============================= 

 

 

 

 

==============================================

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/another-reason-to-get-rid-of-the-u-n-on-american-soil-when-did-the-u-s-give-up-our-sovereignty/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. […] Another Reason to Get Rid of the U.N. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: