The US Constitution is made for a Moral and Religious People... it is wholly inadequate to govern any other

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams.

Our founding fathers were devout Christians, the precepts and hallmarks of our Constitutional Republic reflect our Christian values and standards... if you want to be an atheist, agnostic, or hedonist you must understand that our government was established on Judeo/Christian precepts and can not function properly without them.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation that “[l]iberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith" was noted as the corner stone of America's greatness by Tocqueville... and that which separated us from the fallen governments of Europe. For, hundreds of years, the Natural Law and morality formed the foundation for our claim to certain unalienable rights, they were the source of our laws, and standards for social interaction and justice...

That has all changed. Today, People and governments see how far they can push the boundaries of good behavior and power without incurring rebellion or violence... For decades now, governments have adopted President Obama’s slogan of “Yes We Can”!Can we establish an entire branch of government dedicated to education even though there is no Constitutional grant of authority to do it? Yes We Can! We fight several undeclared wars lasting many years killing thousands, we create an entire dependent population thru social welfare programs none of which are Constitutional.

It is time we returned to our founding fathers faith and constitutional government... reorganizing and limiting the Federal Govrnments scope and power to those enumerated powers in the Constitution... and no more.  We must also restrict the Courts from using Stari Decisis and the courts judgments as LAW... they are not law, they are the Courts rendering of justice in a particular case and only that case.

Views: 1310

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hank this Post is discussing the UN INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS... not the UN CRC treaty... that is a different treaty.

I know its difficult for you to stay focused.  However, please try to stay on the same page.  Page 280 of that UN INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS clearly shows the United States of America has not signed or ratified it into law.  See: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-99...

The scholarship in your group is woefully lacking ... you can't even cite the proper treaty, let alone discuss how it may or may not be part of US Law...

The (UNCRC) is the Convention on the Rights of the Child (commonly abbreviated as the CRC or UNCRC).  It is a human rights treaty which sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. As opposed to general human rights.  The US signed the Treaty in 1995 decades after it was first passed... but CONGRESS and future administrations refused to ratify the CRC Treaty into law. 

See:https://www.humanium.org/en/convention/signatory-states/

The Convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under national legislation.

Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is composed of members from countries around the world…The US has not signed on nor will it... as the US doesn't submit to international law by treaty... to do so would be to surrender ones sovereignty. 

 You Don't say Tif, must of been a type o treaty by the UN...LMAO

Hank... concentrate, it isn't that difficult to use the word Typo correctly.

It is 'TYPO' not 'type o'.... Get it right or stop criticizing others for typos or misspelling.

United Nations Global Compact- 2050- Abortion Fresh Meat For NGOs$$$

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/united-nations-global-comp...

 The United States has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), but is the only United Nations member state that is not a party to it.

The UNCRC aims to protect and promote the rights of all children around the world. It was the first international treaty to integrate all human rights in reference to children, allowing them to participate in family, cultural and social aspects of life. It emphasizes the right to survival, development, and protection against abuse, neglect and exploitation. It also addresses issues with education, health care, juvenile justice and the rights of children with disabilities.

Under the United States Constitution, the ratification of treaties involves several steps. First, the president or their representative would negotiate, agree and sign a treaty, which would then be submitted to the U.S. Senate for its "advice and consent". At that time the President would explain and interpret all provisions in the treaty. If the Senate approves the treaty with a two-thirds majority, it goes back to the President who can ratify it.

The United States government contributed to the drafting of the Convention. It commented on nearly all of the articles, and proposed the original text of seven of them. Three of these come directly from the United States Constitution and were proposed by the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1989 and came into effect on 2 September 1990.

On 16 February 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention. However, though generally supportive of the Convention, President Bill Clinton did not submit it to the Senate. Likewise, President Bush did not submit the Convention to the Senate. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and promised to review this. The Obama administration said that it intended to submit the Convention to the Senate, but failed to do so. As of June 2018, the Trump administration has not ratified the convention.

States may when ratifying the Convention, ratify subject to reservations or interpretations. Besides other obligations, ratification of the Convention would require the United States to submit reports, outlining its implementation on the domestic level, to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world. Parties must report initially two years after acceding to (ratifying) the Convention and then every five years.

The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a volunteer-driven network that includes attorneys, child and human rights advocates, educators, members of religious and faith based communities, non-governmental organizations (UN) (NGOs), students and other concerned citizens.

The United Nations has decided abortion is a “right to life” issue. Unfortunately for the preborn, it is not their right.

Late last year, the U.N. Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment No. 36, a document expounding on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 posits that every human being “has the inherent right to life” and that this right “shall be protected by law.”

At first, the Human Rights Committee’s newest document appears to affirm this unambiguous message:

“It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted… It is most precious for its own sake as a right that inheres in every human being, but it also constitutes a fundamental right whose effective protection is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and whose content can be informed by other human rights.”

However, when it comes to the matter of preborn life, the document makes clear that this “supreme right” is not one afforded to them:

“Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary terminations… restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering…”

The document goes on to explain governments “must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion” in the case that the pregnancy would potentially cause the woman “pain or suffering.” In addition, no laws or barriers may be placed that may push women towards “unsafe” abortions, including those caused by the “exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers.”

The last point may prove quite problematic for doctors and institutions that find abortion unethical. Will they still be allowed to opt out of providing abortions due to moral or religious objections? Or will they be mandated by the state to breach their own ethics?

Beyond that, certain terminology used in the document is ambiguous. For instance, what constitutes “mental pain?” Does raising a child constitute mental pain? Does giving a baby up for adoption? And certainly, you would be hard pressed to find any mother who found the process of childbirth itself entirely devoid of “pain” and “suffering.” Given that, does this mean abortion is never actually restricted? In effect, does this mean any woman could claim exemption from abortion laws at any point?

At the end of the day, this all comes down to one question: does every human being have an inherent right to life or not? If this question can be answered clearly, then everything else should fall into line. The U.N. needs to come forward with whether or not they still stand by the words articulated in the original International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Because, at this moment, it appears they do not.

https://humandefense.com/un-declares-abortion-a-human-right/

Hank...

Nice cut and pace job... did you give credit to the author... no!  By the way this article makes my point...  Madiline Albright, US Ambassador to the UN,  signed the CRC; however, she knew the Senate would not ratify it into law and did not submit it to the Senate... as I stated.

Serveral UN treaties have been signed but not ratified... the most recent being the Paris Accord on the Invironement.  Obama sought to go around Congress on that one... signing it and administering it with an Executive Order... unlawfully of course.

Your group is not helping the situation with the UN... by presenting arguments that we are bound such unratified or unsigned treaties ... You incite wrongful conclusions.... Conclusions, that the US must follow these UN Treaties, when they DO NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THEM. Stop presenting false analysis and conclusions... Stop giving power to treaties that don't have any power in the US. 

It is disgusting to have to keep repeating myself... on issues that are not issues.  NATO is another such instance of misinformation and confusion in your group.. you all need to go back to school... a good school, one that teaches facts, not a public school which indoctrinates and propagandizes its students-

Don't confuse the two treaties... one covers the rights of Children the other seeks to define and protect the general rights every human is endowed with... There are two separate legal documents/treaties being discussed here, both are enforced by the UN, for those who have signed AND RATIFIED the treaties.

When the Communist Party is in control of the White House they sign such crap because they appoint the Ambassador to the UN who is their lacky... However, they have never been able to secure a 2/3rds majority to ratify any of their socialist/Marxist treaties in the US Senate. 

The People of the United States need to be informed of such betrayals and a clear picture presented to the People... regarding the treason at work in America... visa vi the Democrat Party and its allies in the GOP... there are many. Both political parties appear to have been successfully infiltrated by Marxist and their sympothizers. 

Hank...

The process of Ratification occurs in the US Senate. The President proposes and the Senate disposes. The Senate disposes of the treaty by either ratifing it or rejecting it.  The Signature of the President complets the process  by signing it into law.

Until a Treaty is ratified by an affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the US Senate the treaty is a mere proposal... it has no... or is supposed to have no lawful effect to bind the US to its terms.  Neither of the Treaties being discussed here... the UNCRC or the UN INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS are lawfully enforceable in the United States.

All of your rhetoric is much tado... about nothing... The sound of furry, empty rhetoric, when concluded, to be heard no more.

Madiline Albright, US Ambassador to the UN

This is her daddy

Madiline Albright, US Ambassador to the UN

This is one of her next of kin

Hank...

This sort of rhetoric does nothing, adds nothing but confusion to the debate... some passing by may not get the point and draw the conclusion that this site is unworthy of their time.  I tend to agree... such frivolous posts only serve to drive away members... and to stifle legitimate debate.

Ronald,

This sort of rhetoric does nothing, adds nothing but confusion to the debate... some passing by may not get the point and draw the conclusion that this site is unworthy of their time. I tend to agree... such frivolous posts only serve to drive away members... and to stifle legitimate debate.

LMBO.......:)

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service