The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the difference between having liberty and being permitted. Liberties give us freedom to do something whenever we want to do it - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, etc. Permission is granted to those people and organization who promote the agendas of those granting permission - if and when they want to give permission.
The United Nations continues in their efforts to gain control over Americans through their different treaties and agendas in order to bring about a "new world order." Political pundit Dick Morris sounded the warning about some UN treaties currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate. These treaties are "heinous" and - if ratified - "would surrender our sovereignty, cede power to go to war to the UN, enact gun control, and tell us how to raise our children."
All parents and grandparents should be concerned about "Best for the Child" treat. Morris wrote that "The `Best Interests of the Child' Article 3 of the CRC states that `in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.' Thus, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child's best interest as the primary concern. The problem for families occurs when this principle surfaces as a guiding principle for parents. Article 18(1) of the CRC states that `Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.'"
What happens if the United Nations decides that the "best interests of the child" would be for the children to be taken from their parents and raised by the government? An interesting but frightening book by Glenn Beck entitled Agenda 21 clarifies some of the problems that could arise from this treaty.
The "International Criminal Court" could cause other types of problems for Americans. Morris wrote that "The New American revealed the campaign for the ICC as a colossal bait and switch scam. While proponents were selling the ICC as the institution that would haul the Hitlers and Stalins of the world before the bar of justice, what they were actually building is a global judicial monster that violates all the major principles of principles of separation of powers, check and balances, and accountability. In spite of their incessant prattling about dedication to `transparency,' the globalists have been obdurately opaque about key features of the ICC."
Morris stated that "constitutional champions have rightly denounced the ICC" and one called it "a monster." Some of the freedoms that Americans would lose under this treaty, as explained by Morris, are trial by a jury of one's peers, right to habeas corpus, right to bail, right to a speedy trial, protection against indefinite pre-trial detention, and protection against being transported to foreign lands. Bill Clinton expected the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty in 1998 but did not bother to even send it to the Senate after the "U.S. Congress was deluged with letters, e-mails, faxes, phone calls, and petitions opposing it."
"The Law of the Sea Treaty" - officially known as the "United States Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)" but better known as the "Law of the Sea Treaty" (LOST) - "established a comprehensive legal regime for navigation and international management of oceanic resources, including the deep seabed." President Ronald Reagan refused to sign this treaty because it would destroy
sovereignty and would redistribute American wealth to other nations, including
those who support terrorist organizations. U.S.
Morris wrote, "The U.S. currently enjoys full sovereignty over its entire continental shelf. It can claim all its mineral resources (e.g., oil an gas) and can collect royalty revenue from oil and gas companies for exploitation. If the
U.S. joined UNCLOS, Article 82 would require the
to transfer a significant portion of any such royalties to the ISA for
`redistribution' to the so-called developing world, including corrupt and
despotic regime." U.S.
Another part of this treaty "may open the
to any number of specious allegations brought by opportunistic nations,
including allegations of environmental degradation or polluting the ocean
environment with carbon emissions or even from land-based sources." U.S.
"Small Arms Treaty: While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the
to: Enact tougher licensing
requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms
ownership. Confiscate and destroy all
`unauthorized' civilian firearms…. Ban
the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons…. Create an international gun registry, clearly
setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation. In short, overriding our national
sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government
to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the
Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights." U.S.
Do Americans want liberty and freedom or to we want permission from the government? I believe that all of these treaties go against the liberties and freedoms of Americans and should not be ratified.
Post a Comment