US out of the UN

My sig. "All laws to the Contrary Notwithstanding"

 

STP, do you do anything for fun and enjoyment?

 

What does this mean to you?

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

of course! What- do you think I'm some miserable person?

But it is important to pay attention right now, cause I truly believe the dollar will collapse soon and other government initiatives will follow!

 

It means any treaties, laws or decisions of government cannot violate the constitution or else they are immediately nullified; that is how our supreme court has ruled numerous times!

 

Considering the only thing I can go by is your activity here on HF, I would say yes, you present yourself as a very miserable and unhappy person.

 

Oh goodie, another STPLSD thread. Let's look at this first post, the bolded, apparently offensive parts....

you realize that "one homeland" is a reference to planet Earth? Do you understand that this a metaphor? They are referring to the fact that we as humans, literally inhabit the same homeland. You are already there STP.

I don't even know what to say about the rest of it because it sounds amazing. Will they ever achieve it? Of course not. Is it a good goal to aspire to? Much better than your goal of hoarding weapons to fight off "social workers" who spread islam in the name of obama, or whatever the hell you believe.

 

Judging by his pictures...he seems happy with a child in his arms and is trying to pull off a Jim Morrison look the rest of the time. Jim died tragically early, btw. Just sayin'.

 

Well I still think it's sad there are people like you, who have no problem living in their perception of reality, and not reality itself. I'm trying to share the reality of the Rockefellers, Rothechilds and their true ambition with the world, and that's why the UN doesn't endorse peace; the oligarchs pulling the strings just want power, not peace.

 

Thanks. That's what it means to me too. It does not say to me that treaties etc are not to be signed, and are meaningless. The founding fathers knew the value of a treaty etc, but chose them accordingly. You can say that the US is not doing a very good job, but you can't say they never have signed treaties etc. Like I've said before, we would not be speaking to each other with out some international uniformity.

 

But there are too many treaties which violate our rule of law, IE "Disarmament in a peaceful world" etc!

The Constitution represents freedom! Not some elitiest forcing their will on the rest of us! It's sad liberals can't see that...

 

That isn't a UN treaty...


Freedom From War

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS


http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

 

Are you saying unless America says so it it isn't so?

 

What are you talking about?

I think the UN violates Rights that we hold dear in the US, and I think a man cannot serve two masters- Our elected officials seem to serve the UN and NATO imo and countries like Iran who get in the way, are demonized and refered to as 'brutal regimes.'

 

Yet that badly treated country is a signatory and seeks greater involvement...

Go figure...

The Republic of Iran is part of the United Nations.
It has been a member of the UN since December 21st 1945.

Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:47pm BST

Iran is campaigning for a key position on a U.N. General Assembly committee that deals with disarmament and international security amid strong criticism from Israel and others who accuse Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran is competing against Kuwait to be the rapporteur of the U.N. General Assembly's First Committee for its 68th session, which begins in October, U.N. diplomats said. The rapporteur reports on the proceedings of the 193-member committee.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/uk-iran-disarmament-un-idUKBRE96T16B20130730


Have you ever heard of diplomacy and bluster?

I get the point regarding individual sovereignty, but your argument seems to be void because it basically boils down to disagreeing with the game play all countries play.

 

Is "Disarmament in a peaceful world" part of/ a 'UN treaty'?

 

Hold up, I didn't characterize you at all, yet you reacted as if you were offended. How about you hold your sensitivity in check geez.

---
Also I should point out, to anybody who believes the US Congress is catering to the UN, that the US Congress HAS NOT signed on to the:

"United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child", even though we helped draft that piece of UN legislation we won't sign on because of fears that it'll violate tenants we hold in our Constitution.


So the US Congress is secretly supporting a UN Global Agenda my ass...

---
Now I'm conceeding that the people who go abroad and represent the USA in peacekeeping missions or humanitarian aid efforts, at a person by person level probably do unethical things, it's bound to happen.

I mean just look at how the honorable US military is dealing with the internal rape issue within it's own ranks.

People are just wildly immoral sometimes, but that's a person by person, case by case thing.

 

I wish I said that.

 

I'm just watching a commitee meeting about dangerous dogs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXq5MFbVCmY&feature=share&list=PL4l0q4AbG0mmeDQHlnrGDbvnl0jjIW36k"]Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee - Scottish Parliament: 25 June 2013 - YouTube

It seems a country on it's own has a myriad of concerns all of it's own. How many intrusive, aggressive and disturbing laws etc does the whole inflict on one particular country? Working time directives? Internet protocols? What is and is not safe to transport across borders? Not really wicked International laws etc are they?

 

I think both of you are avoiding the simple fact that the UN basically does desire World Domination, the likes of which can only be seen in George Orwells 1984- where citizens are watched in their homes to ensure they don't rebel; that's where we're headed and it's obvious!