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.
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.
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or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”
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."
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.
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.
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]
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]
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.....
[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100051882/barack-obama-bows-before-the-un-over-arizona-immigration-law/]telegraph[/ur l]
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.