United NATIONS.

For discussion of secret combinations (political, economic, spiritual, religious, etc.) (Ether 8:18-25.)
User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

http://constitution.com/guess-u-n-secre ... -say-west/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has surfaced, once again to lecture the Anglosphere and the Western world about its “duties” to hurriedly absorb nearly half a million more Syrian migrants. The war-torn country’s surrounding nations, he argues, have done the heavy lifting already. Now the U.N. chief wants you and your communities to do more.
Maybe someone needs to remind him that if it were not for us mean old Americans and our EU allies, he would be answering to Kim Jong-Un. Or better yet, ask him exactly how many refugees his home country of South Korea has taken in this year. How many do you think they will take in next year?
The New York Times reports that the Sec. General opened a conference in Geneva today, demanding “an exponential increase in global solidarity”, insisting that “Neighboring countries have done far more than their share” and imploring “Others [to] now step up.”
And of course the stress was on European Union member states and the United States of America to do more. The news follows quickly on the heels of Oxfam – one of the world’s most political charities – demanding that France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, and Denmark all take in more “refugees” and faster.
This is just further proof of the lunacy of the U.N. and those running this circus. We are the ones paying for their existence, yet they at almost every turn are trying to bully Americans into conforming to their ideals.
I wish we would have a president just tell them they have thirty days to get out of our building in New York and that they would not be receiving our contribution this year. It is well past the time that all free loaders get off the back of the American worker.
And that includes any from foreign countries."

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by lundbaek »

The New American magazine 4 April 2016 issue reports that Peter Sutherland, former Goldman Sachs chairman an ex-member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee who currently "serves" as the UN special representative of the secretary general for international migration has stated "I will ask the governments to cooperate, to recognize that sovereignty is an illusion - that sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to bas to be put behind us..." And also that billionaire globalist and open-borders zealot George Soros stated "Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle." The article continues "In essence, then, the engineered refugee crisis was created and is being used, at least in part, to advance what globalists often refer to as "global governance" and their "new world order."....To begin with, it is important to understand that the same self-styled humanitarians claimimg to be conceerned about refugees, while demanding that they be given asylum in the West by the millions, are, in reality, the same people responsible for making thieer victims int refugees to begin with."

User avatar
Sandinista
captain of 100
Posts: 518
Location: Ohio

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Sandinista »

"I wish we would have a president just tell them they have thirty days to get out of our building in New York and that they would not be receiving our contribution this year. It is well past the time that all free loaders get off the back of the American worker."

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by lundbaek »

It seems the real objectives of the UN are understood by very few people, namely the creation of a single world government. Few there be willing to do the homework necessary to understand that. Even among the most strongly conservative of my acquaintances can I find little agreement with my hope to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.
Last edited by lundbaek on April 1st, 2016, 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
light-one
captain of 100
Posts: 712

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by light-one »

lundbaek wrote:It seems the real objectives of the UN are understood by very few people, namely the creation of a single world government. Few there be willing to do the homework necessary to understand that. Even among the most strongly conservative of my acquaintances can I find agreement with my hope to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.
Obama has already given the UN power and authority over the United States.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by lundbaek »

Correction to my above post: Even among the most strongly conservative of my acquaintances can I find LITTLE agreement with my desire to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

It is not only Obama & Co. who have given the UN power and authority over the United States. I my lifetime it began with President Truman and was especially apparent to me during both Bush administrations, America's 70+ year-long entanglement with the UN has given us all kinds of trouble: military, legal, financial and social. It has involved America in wars, sapped its financial and economic resources, worked to change our laws, and gradually undermined America's national sovereignty. But I believe that's been the plan all along. If the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution had been more widely understood and appreciated, the UN would have lost the support of the USA and probably disbanded. But instead of that, that murderous combination has gotten above us.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

This is what is happening as a direct result of the UN... Australian news crew in Sweden assaulted.

http://fromtheright.com/latest/disgusti ... t-happens/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by David13 »

It is amazing how few people recognize what an evil the "United Nations" is.
dc

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by lundbaek »

Every American should by intimately familiar with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, both of which show that the United Nations-centered new world order is utterly incompatible with the government the Lord intended for us to live under, and thru our example, persuade and encourage other nations to desire and strive to establish for themselves.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by lundbaek »

On August 13, 2015, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon publicly called for the resignation of the top UN official in the Central African Republic. Citing sexual violence against the people perpetrated by UN peacekeepers in that landlocked country, Ban stated, "I can not put into words how anguished and ashamed I am by the recurrent reports over the years of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN forces."

Ban shouldn't have been suddenly horrified by such criminal activity. Rape and exploitation of defenseless women and children by UN peacekeepers is more the norm than the exception. Countries where such conduct had already occurred over the last decade include Haiti, Congo, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, South Sudan, Bosnia, East Timor, Ivory Coast, and the Central African Republic.

In the face of such a record, the world is supposed to look the other way and join in absurd insistence about how much the UN is needed. But Paula Donovan of the "AIDS-Free World" organization explains why little if anything is done to stop the atrocities. "If something isn't going well in the world, you can blame the member states. But if something is not going well in the [UN] organization, everyone suppresses the bad news and doesn't pass it along."

There is, of course, far more to consider about the world body than the horrifying misconduct of its peacekeepers. The UN was established for the purpose of destroying national sovereignty and abolishing the personal freedom of every person on Earth. Operating under its charter formulated in 1945 by open Russian Communist Andrei Vyshinsky and secret U.S. Communist Alger Hiss, the UN has steadily grown in power and authority. Debating entry into the world body in the summer of 1945, the U.S. Senate approved the charter by a vote of 89 to 2, thereby placing our nation in the organization as one of its founders.

When the UN calls for, or when American leaders decide to engage in, military activity, subsequent action proceeds in the name of the UN itself, as in Korea in the 1950s, or more frequently in the name of the one of the UN's "Regional Arrangements," such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) as provided in the charter's Articles 51-54. One of these UN subsidiaries, labeled SEATO, directed America's defeat in the Vietnam War. Currently, the UN's NATO now oversees the conflict in Afghanistan. Ever since the end of World War II, the U.S. hasn't won a war (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), but our casualties have been more than a hundred thousand. Membership in the United Nations led to all those deaths and injuries without the victories that could have been achieved by unchained U.S. forces. A different but important kind of loss has been termination of the required constitutional declaration of war by Congress.

In his address to the UN in 1990, President George H.W. Bush showed his true loyalties when he stated, "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance." He's never been alone in uttering such subversive nonsense. In 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell journeyed to UN headquarters to proclaim, "With respect to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we obviously are bound by UN resolutions." He should have been fired, but he won praise. Far from being the only U.S. leaders to bow before the UN, Bush and Powell expressed the consistent attitude held by U.S. leaders ever since our country entered the UN in 1945. To them, their oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution means nothing.

Meanwhile, the supposedly "do nothing" UN is hard at work seeking and arranging for national disarmament, abolition of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unrestricted abortion, control of education, placement of refugees, termination of property rights, sovereignty-destroying trade pacts, environmental and population controls, and much more. And a parade of U.S. leaders stretching back to 1945 has cooperated with every seizure of power, every UN intervention in the domestic affairs of nations (clearly forbidden by the UN Charter), and the beginning steps contained in the UN's Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 programs. Anyone who removes the blinders can see the UN steadily gaining total control over everyone and everything.

All of this boils down to the shocking realization that our country isn't being taken over by the world body; it is being delivered to the United Nations. Which means that we can do something about it. We can work to inform a sufficient number of fellow Americans who will demand that our country withdraw from the trap that has been laid for us, a trap into which our own leaders are steadily pushing our country.

Congress put America into the UN. Congress can and should take us out. In March 2015, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) introduced H.R. 1205 (the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015) in the House of Representatives, calling for U.S. withdrawal from the world body. A companion measure is needed in the Senate. Even though H.R. 1205 was introduced over a year ago, there are still only six cosponsors in the House. It's up to all of us that understand the threat posed by the United Nations, plus many more each of us can influence, to contact our representatives and senators and strongly urge that they cosponsor and pass H.R. 1205 to Get US Out! of the United Nations in the House and introduce, cosponsor, and pass a companion bill in the Senate.

(From a message by the John Birch Society)

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by lundbaek »

In Chapter 19 PROPHETS PRINCIPLES AND NATIONAL SURVIVAL by LDS author/compiler Jerreld Newquist one can read numerous statements about the United Nations mostly by President J. Reuben Clark and Ezra Taft Benson.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.com. ... s-way.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQqrriw87dE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Published on 6 Apr 2016
Watch this video to find out what mass immigration will lead to by legal definition and who is responsible for it. Find out more at http://www.thisiseuropa.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by David13 »

Diversity is another name for a lowest common denominator.
dc

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by moonwhim »

The UN is bringing the whole world under the subjugation of their Agenda 21 (now called Agenda 20-30).....the the US is being sucked in fast.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/08 ... ceans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


April 8, 2016
The United Nations has launched a far-reaching initiative that could give U.N.-sponsored authorities sway over the biological resources of the high seas—all the waters that lie outside national territories and economic zones.
The potential shift in power involves multi-trillion-dollar issues, such as whether large areas—conceivably, as much as 30 percent-- of the world’s international waters should be designated as no-go areas to protect biological diversity; whether and how to require elaborate “environmental impact assessments” for future ocean development projects; and how to divide up the economic benefits from the future development of “marine genetic resources.”
Eden Charles, a diplomat from Trinidad and Tobago who is serving as the chairman for a U.N. preparatory committee that began the discussions this week underlined to Fox News that the talks are at a “very, very preliminary stage.”
Overall, the hoped-for treaty will cover “two-thirds of the oceans, almost half the planet,” says Lisa Speer, a senior official of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which is in turn a lead member of a squadron of 33 environmentalist groups banded together as the High Seas Alliance to lobby for protectionist measures during the talks."

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by lundbaek »

Considering the UN's goal of world government, this is dangerous.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

"The heel of the U.N.’s boot is pressing on our throats – intent on forcing us into ‘acceptance.’ Where will this end? Business owners are already being fined and sent to ‘re-education’ classes. Schools, and now churches are being told they have to comply with transgender bathroom policies. Soon – jail cells await.
This truly is a “global war against religion, traditional values, morality, and truth.”

The New American reports – The United Nations “Human Rights Council,” which counts some of the world’s most ruthless dictatorships as members, sparked global outrage last week by voting to appoint a UN czar to oversee the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism around the world. In the crosshairs are religious and moral views that reject homosexual behavior as sinful, as well as objective reality and biological facts that until recent years were taken for granted. The deeply controversial scheme was pushed through by communist and socialist rulers with fervent support from the Obama administration, which for years has been lawlessly using American tax dollars and diplomatic resources to bribe and bully foreign governments into compliance with the radical agenda. But there was a great deal of opposition, and criticism of the UN extremism is growing.

Officially, the UN LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) “expert” will work to combat “violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” In reality, though, forces on both sides of the issue know full well that the UN czar will serve as another weapon in the global war against religion, traditional values, morality, and truth. Indeed, top UN bureaucrats involved in the effort have already announced that the plot includes preventing homosexuals and transgenders from being “stigmatized.” That means they hope to change people’s views and morals — and even their religion.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon (shown above), who last year celebrated a notorious child rapist for launching the “gay rights revolution,” cited schools as one of the many targets for the new UN homosexuality czar to focus on. Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, meanwhile, admitted that the LGBT czar would be a “focal point” for “combatting [sic] challenges faced by LGBT persons.” That means the agenda goes way beyond merely protecting homosexuals from violence. And remember, Obama boasted about having lied to the American people all along about his views on homosexual “marriage,” meaning that, what they admit to plotting is likely just the start.

Consider that, under the guise of stopping “discrimination” against homosexuals and people confused about which sex they are, extremists at all levels of government in the United States and the West are working overtime to turn the world upside down. From allowing men into women’s restrooms and locker rooms, to redefining and even un-defining marriage, to forcing bakers and florists into re-education programs for refusing to play along with the reality-denying agenda, UN and U.S. officials are becoming more and more extreme. In some increasingly totalitarian Western nations, pastors and evangelists are literally being thrown in jail merely for pointing out that homosexual acts are sinful. And that is just the beginning."

The New American covers news on politics economy culture and more based on the U.S. Constitution so that freedom shall not perish.

U.N. Czar Appointed to Oversee World-Wide "Normalization of Homosexuality and Transgenderism - Minutemen News

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

http://bb4sp.com/ag-lynch-announces-glo ... p-with-un/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... sm-in-u-s/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"During her speech at the United Nations, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Department of Justice is launching a global police force in order to combat “violent extremism” in the United States.
A proposal such as this, with all of its various implications of an overreach of power, should be front-page news everywhere, but unfortunately, not many noticed. And that’s a concern to constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall who released a video to make the rallying call.
“Something happened yesterday that I’m afraid will go completely unnoticed,” Hall began. “Yesterday, the Department of Justice, several cities within the United States, several municipalities, linked up with the United Nations to form a global police initiative. It is called the Strong Cities Network.”
“This is such an attack on our Constitution. This is such an attack on the sovereignty of our states,” she added. “This will eliminate the rights of the people as we know them under a constitutional republic.”
Hall warns that this initiative will be the vehicle used to usher in the UN arms treaty and the UN controlling America. She says it will bypass Congress and the treaty process, and will be implemented on the local level “so people will never even notice.”
Helping her get this message out is noted fighter against the Islamisation of America, Pamela Geller. In her latest piece for Breitbart, she sends out a similar warning:
The groundwork is being laid for federal and international interference down to the local level. “The Strong Cities Network,” Lynch declared, “will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration” – i.e., local dependence on federal and international authorities.
Lynch made the global (that is, United Nations) involvement clear when she added: “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”
Geller notes the oddity that the Strong Cities Network wasn’t announced at an appropriate national venue, such as the White House or FBI headquarters but “ominously” before the UN. It didn’t help that the DoJ press release accompanying the announcement read, “While many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.”
Geller writes: “This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.”
Making sure her battle cry isn’t misconstrued as yet another conspiracy theory, Geller points to Lynch’s own words from her speech:
“As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”
And just to be sure, Geller adds additional quotes from the DoJ press release:
“[The Strong Cities Network] will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.”

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by David13 »

Thanks for posting this Elizabeth.
I don't like any of it.
It's unimaginable that I could see this preposterous stuff in my own life time.
dc

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... imate-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Amid an illegal plot to “ratify” a United Nations treaty on “climate change” without the constitutionally required advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, Obama is behaving more and more like a tinpot dictator looting what remains of a collapsing banana republic. As part of the effort to defend the unconstitutional scheme to bypass Congress and “ratify” the UN climate regime, however, the White House and its globalist allies are twisting themselves into legalistic and rhetorical pretzels — and setting up the UN scheme for failure. The formal announcement ahead of the upcoming Communist Chinese-led G20 confirms what The New American first reported over two years ago.

The UN, Obama, and Beijing are all hoping to get the agreement “ratified” before or during the G20 meeting in early September, according to news reports. Unlike the U.S. Congress, which Obama knows will not approve his dangerous UN “climate” regime, even the rubber-stamp legislature serving the brutal communist dictatorship enslaving mainland China is getting an opportunity to weigh in on ratifying the so-called “Paris Agreement.” Beijing's propaganda organs are making a big show out of the fact that the “Standing Committee” of the “National People’s Congress” is deliberating on whether to ratify the controversial UN deal."

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

The United Nations are forcing these immigrants upon us:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/aust ... d-in-syria" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"He has two wives… polygamy is illegal in Australia... And he is a disability pensioner, but he is well enough to recruit for jihad? UK jihadi Anjem Choudary said in February 2013: “We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, We take the Jizya (protection money paid to Muslims by non-Muslims) which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the Kafir (non-Muslim), isn’t it? So this is normal situation. They give us the money. You work, give us the money. Allah Akbar, we take the money. Hopefully there is no one from the DSS (Department of Social Security) listening. Ah, but you see people will say you are not working. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the Kuffar (non-Muslim) So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

http://minutemennews.com/26211-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... imate-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Amid an illegal plot to “ratify” a United Nations treaty on “climate change” without the constitutionally required advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, Obama is behaving more and more like a tinpot dictator looting what remains of a collapsing banana republic. As part of the effort to defend the unconstitutional scheme to bypass Congress and “ratify” the UN climate regime, however, the White House and its globalist allies are twisting themselves into legalistic and rhetorical pretzels — and setting up the UN scheme for failure. The formal announcement ahead of the upcoming Communist Chinese-led G20 confirms what The New American first reported over two years ago.

The UN, Obama, and Beijing are all hoping to get the agreement “ratified” before or during the G20 meeting in early September, according to news reports. Unlike the U.S. Congress, which Obama knows will not approve his dangerous UN “climate” regime, even the rubber-stamp legislature serving the brutal communist dictatorship enslaving mainland China is getting an opportunity to weigh in on ratifying the so-called “Paris Agreement.” Beijing's propaganda organs are making a big show out of the fact that the “Standing Committee” of the “National People’s Congress” is deliberating on whether to ratify the controversial UN deal."

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... a-45942745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"The Obama administration will seek a formal political agreement at the United Nations that would legally bind the United States to a nuclear test ban treaty rejected by the Senate 17 years ago.

The plan was outlined in a letter from the State Department to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), who is challenging the administration’s effort to lock in American adherence to the signed but unratified Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT.

The treaty bans nuclear testing and was signed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1996. The Senate voted against ratifying the treaty in 1999. The Obama administration, as part of its anti-nuclear arms control agenda, has sought ways to codify the test ban treaty despite the constitutional requirement for Senate ratification.

Julia Frifield, assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, stated in an Aug. 10 letter to Corker that the administration would not seek a legally binding U.N. Security Council resolution on testing.

But Frifield said the administration is working on a U.N. resolution that would affirm the current U.S. moratorium on nuclear tests, and which would mention a legal commitment not to test made in a joint statement by the five declared nuclear powers.

Frifield said the administration wants a new “political statement” that would commit the United States, China, Russia, France, and Britain to legally ban nuclear testing.

The statement will say that any nuclear test would “defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty, she noted.

“This statement would make clear our and the other P5 members’ views that CTBT signatories have an international legal obligation not to test unless they make it clear they no longer intend to become a party to the CTBT,” she wrote, adding that the planned Security Council resolution would mention the political statement but not impose “that view as a legal matter, or any other legal prohibition on nuclear testing.”

The assistant secretary insisted the political statement and resolution would not “tie the hands of future administrations” that will retain authority over testing.

“We fully respect the Senate’s constitutional role in treaty ratification, and emphasize that our proposal is absolutely no substitute for entry into force of the CTBT, which would result in a durable, legally binding test ban and which would bring into full force the treaty’s vital verification mechanisms,” she stated.

Corker said the administration increasingly has used international organizations to impact U.S. law and policy without Congress’ approval.

“Regardless of how one feels about the policy, it would set a damaging precedent for the president to attempt to implement a treaty rejected by the Senate using the backdoor process of a U.N. Security Council Resolution,” Corker (R-Tenn.) told the Washington Free Beacon.

Corker is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, which has jurisdiction on treaty ratification. He strongly opposed the State Department plan in a letter last month sent to President Obama, criticizing “efforts by your administration to circumvent the U.S. Congress and the Senate’s constitutional role in promoting ratification” of the CTBT at the United Nations.

“The Senate could not have been more straightforward in its opposition to U.S. ratification of the CTBT with 51 members of the Senate voting against ratification in 1999,” Corker stated in the Aug. 12 letter.

The treaty was voted down over concerns that its provisions could not be adequately verified and that states could conduct undetectable underground nuclear tests. A total of 44 specific countries must ratify the treaty before entry into force. States that have signed but not ratified are China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the United States. India, Pakistan and North Korea are nuclear states that have not signed the treaty.

Anti-nuclear groups have been promoting measures to codify the test ban despite the Senate’s rejections.

“The U.S. Constitution clearly provides the Senate—not the United Nations—the right to the provision of advice and consent for the ratification of any treaty, including the ability to identify when a treaty or the application of the provisions contained in a treaty is not in the U.S. interest,” Corker said.

Corker stated that any political statement invoking the “object and purpose” language “could trigger a limitation on the ability of future administrations to conduct nuclear weapons tests.”

Additionally, obligations under “object and purpose” restrictions in signed but unratified treaties have been recognized by several U.S. administrations as “customary international law that present a binding restriction on the United States,” Corker stated.

“By signing on to language declaring avoidance of nuclear weapons testing to be essential to the ‘object and purpose’ of the CTBT, the State Department is in effect submitting the United States to the restrictions of a treaty that has not entered into force,” he said. “Regardless of one’s view about the necessity of nuclear testing, seeking to limit a future administration through a customary international law mechanism, when your administration has only four months left in office, is inappropriate.”

The committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on the controversy. Witnesses scheduled to appear include Stephen Rademaker, a former State Department arms control official, and Michael Krepon, an anti-nuclear activist with the Stimson Center.

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear weapons policymaker, said a test ban is bad idea due to Russian and Chinese cheating.

“The administration claims that it is not subverting the Constitution but rather merely reaffirming the existing testing moratorium,” Schneider said. “One slight problem: There is substantial evidence that Russia and China are violating their announced moratorium on nuclear testing.”

Additionally, differences in the definition of nuclear testing could facilitate circumvention of the current moratorium, he said.

“If the moratorium allows testing at very low yields for Russia and China, are we going to test at the same very low yields?” he asked. “Or is this more ideological ‘arms control’ in which arms control violations by our adversaries are to be ignored? That is my reading of what they are actually doing.”

Retired Vice Adm. Robert R. Monroe, former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, warned that a lack of nuclear testing could result in a failure of nuclear weapons in a future conflict.

Monroe stated in a commentary published in the Hill Tuesday that nuclear weapons are extremely complex weapons designed decades ago but not tested for 24 years.

A small fault in the physics package of warhead design that is common to two warhead types could prevent nuclear weapons from detonating.

“We discovered many dozens of unanticipated faults like this during our half-century of nuclear weapons testing,” Monroe stated. “But in 1992 we stopped testing and relied on computer simulations instead. The problem is that this type of fault hadn’t occurred to our physicists; and you know what they say about computers, garbage in, garbage out.”

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: United NATIONS.

Post by Elizabeth »

"Authoritarian Regimes Have Already Proposed ICANN Become Part Of The U.N. To Make It Easier For Them To Censor The Internet Globally." -The Wall Street Journal

The New American reports: "As the United Nations and various globalist outfits prepare to seize control over crucial components of the Internet's architecture, the prospect of mischief or even outright tyranny and censorship becomes much more realistic."

This United Nations Internet takeover will happen AUTOMATICALLY on October 1, unless Congress steps in and puts a stop to it."

Post Reply