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: 1326

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 AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service