It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
okay I see it doesnt say he is asking the u.n. for a punishment for arizona, but he is asking for reccomendations. and what is the reason for wanting the u.n.'s reccomendations? to see how they want him to handle it maybe? maybe a good way for the tptb to get us used to the idea of the u.n. weighing in on our domestic matters. remember just a little at a time people. baby steps if you will. i in no way like either party or any of the crap going on now either so please dont lump me in to a side, just trying to be objective. btw, i voted for obama, the reason i did was because i thought he would revoke the patriot act and all the other tyrant measures that where put in place after 9/11. not to mention universal healthcare would have been awesome, just ask any countryman who has it.

found this article today too and even though i dont like this guys political view. he has a good point on this.

www.sott.net...

[edit on 06/02/2010 by letscit]




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


obviously you didnt hear these stories or where under control by HAARP. but since you didnt see them at the time here ya go.

BP buys internet sites to keep people away from real news
www.sott.net...

after blocking CBS crew, coast guard denies BP rules
www.sott.net...

followed by bp security and detained by police
www.sott.net...

bp, coast guard officers block cbs crew from filming oiled beach w/ video
www.sott.net...

[edit on 06/02/2010 by letscit]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


the law in any state in all of america is if you are pulled over you are to be asked for i.d. and proof of insurance. that is just how it is. if you cant provide these papers you get fined if you can remember your s.s#. if you cant you get detained. seems to me arizona didnt need this law as it is already in place but i do understand the feds wouldnt pick up the illegals so arizona decided they needed a state law to detain them themselves as they are right on the border and are having a big illegal problem. if you get stopped or questioned and dont have id or remember your s.s. you get detained. period. and if you are illegal you shouldnt be here. simple. what is the fuss and all the crying about the color crap. i am white and have been fined for this. geesh!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
www.campaignforliberty.com...


AZGOP NEWS Legislative Update Thursday, April 23, 2009

Representative Judy Burges, (R-Skull Valley) recently sponsored and passed a Arizona House resolution stipulating that the State of Arizona claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(snip)
The legislation which passed by a 6-3 margin states that this resolution serves as both a notice and a demand to the federal governemnt to immediately cease and desist mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.





Link to the bill:

www.azleg.gov.../legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm


So he can huff and puff and try to blow that little house down, but just like everything else he says, it's just hot air.

Thank goodness the states thought ahead and knew when he was elected what was coming.


www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...



The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:

“That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

and

“That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”




Huffing and puffing, he is just showing his true colors, and the fact that he had to get the UN involved speaks volumes about his power... er or lack thereof.. now doesn't it?

He can try to sign away our countries' rights and sovereignty, sign his little UN treaties, sign whatever he wants, but the truth of the matter is - he is only signing away his own power, not the states.


Like it or not, he is bound by the Constitution. You know, that document that outlines exactly what powers the Federal Government has - the one he hates so much.

It was here before him, it shall be here, even if a bit tattered, after him.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I've seen that,too. It's easy to "huff and puff" if you get the U.N. army behing you though!

The way I look at it,this country used to be blessed,but no longer are we going to have God's protection. (I'm not preaching,I'm just connecting-the-dots.) Our government has hostility to God and Israel,and according to the Bible,that's a no-no!

I can barely think about what lies ahead. We know what the plans are,and I don't see anyway to intervene. There is no one in the "ruling class" that isn't corrupt.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by letscit
 


Thank you for that link! I'm going to add it to another thread I saw today:
"Will there be a new Hitler in the near future?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you for your comments,as well! It's amazing how many people are ready to accept a new kind of government,but the evidence for this being a bad sign are everywhere!

Speaking of "signs of the times"...

"United Nations & the Occult Agenda (Pt. 1 of 10)"
www.youtube.com...

I've had debates about this subject of the "new-age" agenda before,so this won't appeal to everyone. Just expressing my views while I have a chance! I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate. I already know most people on this forum are already entrenched in their own beliefs,and I respect everyone's right to decide what rings true for them.

If there are any Christians reading this,take heed if you will. If not by watching the video,just do your own research. This is what's happening!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
three pages in and no one has mentioned the fact that obama is the president of the u.n.

do people realy not know, or not care.

from - wiki.answers.com...

"Does president Obama head the UN?

Yes. Just recently Barack Obama was sworn in as Head of the U. N. Security Council. The security council has the only real voting power in the UN. At the inauguration Obama was addressed as "President of the World".

This office violates the US. Constitution Article 1. Section 9. In which a President cannot hold dual office and still maintain the Presidency of the United States of America."



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


I do remember that,and it is very significant,like you pointed out. I thought it might be a rotating thing,I don't remember. It was totally against the Constitution for him to do that. (Like any of that matters now!)

(I do know there was one seat vacant at the U.N. for awhile...#666! The same number of the winning Pick 3 lottery on Nov.5th,when Obama was confirmed President!)

Thank you for bringing that back into focus! I am going to look into it again.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. immigration law

azstarnet.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
three pages in and no one has mentioned the fact that obama is the president of the u.n.

[...]

Yes. Just recently Barack Obama was sworn in as Head of the U. N. Security Council. The security council has the only real voting power in the UN. At the inauguration Obama was addressed as "President of the World".

This office violates the US. Constitution Article 1. Section 9. In which a President cannot hold dual office and still maintain the Presidency of the United States of America."


Your statements are misleading.

Obama has chaired one meeting of the U.N. Security Council (of which the U.S. is a permanent member). The chair of a UN meeting is in fact considered the president of the UN for that month. The president of the holds little power.

Here is how the president is selected:


The presidency rotates monthly among the state members of the Security Council. The rotation takes place in alphabetical order of the member states' official United Nations names in English.


You may find it surprising that Al Gore has functioned as the president of the UN Security Council also.

Here's some further reading regarding the role and function of the UN monthly president/meeting chair (including complete listing of all past presidents).

From the UN's press release from Sept 2009:


For the first time in history, a President of the United States would chair a meeting of the Security Council, the country’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations said at a Headquarters press conference today. Briefing on the Council’s programme of work for this month, during which her country holds the 15-member organ’s rotating presidency, Susan Rice said that on 24 September, President Barack Obama would chair a Council summit on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, the fifth such meeting in the history of the United Nations. The meeting would not focus on any particular country, but on arms control, nuclear disarmament, strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and denying and disrupting trafficking in nuclear materials while ensuring they were secured.


Further, this is not holding dual office - as functioning as a meeting chair does not constitute an elected or appointed civil position. Rather, he served a role for a single meeting.

What is of interest is the subject of the meeting: Non-proliferation of Nuclear Arms (only 5 previous such meetings ever). This is especially interesting considering the current Iran situation. Someone may be interested in finding out the details of that meeting.

[edit to modify tense as meeting occurred in September 2009]
[edit for clarity and expansion]

[edit on 27-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


Thanks for pointing that out
I was worried he may actually have some power.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
three pages in and no one has mentioned the fact that obama is the president of the u.n.

[...]

Yes. Just recently Barack Obama was sworn in as Head of the U. N. Security Council. The security council has the only real voting power in the UN. At the inauguration Obama was addressed as "President of the World".

This office violates the US. Constitution Article 1. Section 9. In which a President cannot hold dual office and still maintain the Presidency of the United States of America."


Your statements are misleading.

Obama has chaired one meeting of the U.N. Security Council (of which the U.S. is a permanent member). The chair of a UN meeting is in fact considered the president of the UN for that month. The president of the holds little power.

Here is how the president is selected:

[edit on 27-8-2010 by misinformational]


yes the post was misleading because i was mislead, the link i posted was the most informative i could find about it, thank you for posting a better link and clarfieing,

until now i actualy had thought that he was still the elected president of the un, i will go look through that link now to reaffirm what you've said.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by On the Edge

While Americans focused on more scintillating news, President Clinton quietly signed a new executive order titled "The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties." The media ignored it and our leaders didn't tell us. Yet we will pay the cost (in freedom as well as dollars) for the creation of a massive government bureaucracy to promote, monitor, and enforce compliance with human rights regulations mandated by the United Nations.


At the first glance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds good, as do all the intrusive UN human rights treaties. Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Your rights would be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your message supports official ideology are you free to speak it. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism.


There,does it sound better,or worse, knowing it began with Clinton and not King Obama?

They don't call it U.N. for nothing!...

Like,"Un-Rights",the opposite of Freedom.



[edit on 25-8-2010 by On the Edge]

www.apfn.org...

Edit to add the edit that didn't show up the first time! I forgot to add the link,and also didn't realize how little of the quote would be included. Sorry!

Oh,what the heck,this was just a matter of time. I forget who said it,but "If you're not governed by God,you'll be ruled by tyrants."

You don't have to believe in God to see how things have changed.

P.S.
The point of the quote was this:

But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by On the Edge]

[edit on 25-8-2010 by On the Edge]


I'm fairly certain what that actually means, when translated from legalese, is that someone cannot conduct a campaign of terror (for instance) against UN institutions in the hopes of dismantling the UN structure across the world, not that you are forbidden from voicing dissent.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by On the Edge
 


Its one thing to handle this matter privately in our own country....its another to bring this before the UN counsel which has NO business in how we run our states here in the US....

Every move this man makes, he shows his hand.......wake up people.....


And also... false.

By being a signatory to the UN Charter, the US is obliged (but not legally bound) to act in compliance with the Charter provisions and any unanimously adopted documents such as the UDHR, the principles of which serve as the foundation for the UN.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 


I was looking to see if this had been discussed on ATS, and it should come as no suprise that you got it covererd!



It is important to note that the Obama administration’s report to the United Nations will go before the UN Human Rights Council, which includes in its current membership some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. The likes of China, Cuba, Libya, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, will have a right to pass judgment over the Arizona immigration law, a humiliation for a great superpower before some of the most brutal regimes on the face of the earth.

Over the course of the last 19 months, Barack Obama has bowed before Emperors and Kings, and apologised for his country on numerous occasions, from Cairo to Strasbourg. By deliberately placing the immigration policy of a US state before the Human Rights Council, he is now bowing before the United Nations, and undercutting the sovereignty of his own nation. This is not leadership but a surrender of US interests before a declining world body that is a hotbed of anti-Americanism, and a bully pulpit for many of the world’s most odious tyrants.
[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100051882/barack-obama-bows-before-the-un-over-arizona-immigration-law/]telegraph[/ur l]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join