The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: BlueStateSaint on February 25, 2009, 01:00:05 PM
-
(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7733/senbarbaraboxerdca76953np6.jpg)
Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a controversial treaty that has never gained much support in the U.S.
Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.
The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.
Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.
Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.
That could change soon.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/
This idiot is damn near the stupidest thing in the Senate. What an effin' idiot. Sen. Patty Murray can't be far behind Boxer on the "Stoopid" scale.
-
The left is all too willing to subjugate themselves and us to the wishes of the UN. Personally I think that she is breaking her oath of office by doing this.
-
These two nitwits need to read aloud their oaths of office and explane their understanding of it publicly and on videotape. Then they need to rededicate themselves to the CONSTITUTION, AS THEY ARE SWORN TO.
-
My prediction is that this will not gain any traction. There is a public groundswell against insane moonbat ideas, and one that horns in between you and your kid? Ain't going to happen. Worth keeping an eye on, though.
Off-topic: Go to WhatObamameanstome.com Their project is to collect all the obomobots sentiments and present a lovely book to the messiah one years hence. It's been hijacked, and it's pretty funny reading. Leave one yourself!
-
It would not suprise me to see the UN gain more traction in the Messiah's Administration and his Politburo. Congress has pretty much shown they could care less about what the people they represent think, except in election year.
-
This idiot is damn near the stupidest thing in the Senate.
Oh, she sits that close to Fat Teddy?
-
Off-topic: Go to WhatObamameanstome.com Their project is to collect all the obomobots sentiments and present a lovely book to the messiah one years hence. It's been hijacked, and it's pretty funny reading. Leave one yourself!
Hilarious. I went there and this was one of the first things I saw:
I'm crazier than a shithouse rat - hear me out...â€
:lmao:
-
Somebody needs to Falcon Punch her into next Tuesday.
-
I just don't see how this shit is f'n funny anymore. I see a VIOLENT revolution coming a helluva lot sooner than we think. :censored:
-
I just don't see how this shit is f'n funny anymore. I see a VIOLENT revolution coming a helluva lot sooner than we think. :censored:
So do I. But, it'll be short, I think.
-
They are over reaching big time.
-
My prediction is that this will not gain any traction. There is a public groundswell against insane moonbat ideas, and one that horns in between you and your kid? Ain't going to happen. Worth keeping an eye on, though.
Off-topic: Go to WhatObamameanstome.com Their project is to collect all the obomobots sentiments and present a lovely book to the messiah one years hence. It's been hijacked, and it's pretty funny reading. Leave one yourself!
It would be easy enough for them to sneak it into an unrelated bill to be passed in the middle of the night.
-
It would be easy enough for them to sneak it into an unrelated bill to be passed in the middle of the night.
Just like Tom Dasshole's suggestion on health care . . .
-
It would be easy enough for them to sneak it into an unrelated bill to be passed in the middle of the night.
I don't think so, it would be totally untoward to slap a treaty ratification into something else like that...I suspect it'd violate some Senate procedural rule, but they're so arcane it's impossible to say. That's the kind of thing that would actually draw a successful filibuster with Blue Dog defections from the Communist Caucus.
-
Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said.
How about the :censored: right to life?
-
How about the :censored: right to life?
It's not about protecting children. These f'n COMMUNISTS want TOTAL control. :censored:
Time to clean my rifle.
-
I don't think so, it would be totally untoward to slap a treaty ratification into something else like that...I suspect it'd violate some Senate procedural rule, but they're so arcane it's impossible to say. That's the kind of thing that would actually draw a successful filibuster with Blue Dog defections from the Communist Caucus.
Since when have they been stopped from doing the "untoward"?
Half of the shit in the United States Code is out right unconstitutional to begin with.
IMO.
-
Half of the shit in the United States Code is out right unconstitutional to begin with.
+1000.
-
+1000.
I suspect there is a reason why Congress refuses to seriously even look at passing the Enumerated Powers Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1359)
They know that a lot of what they have been doing for decades would not pass valid Constitutional review.
-
Probably deserves it's own thread, but:
Oklahoma about to reaffirm their sovereignty (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89842)
...and therein lies the problem with Democrats. Why would any politician vote AGAINST reaffirming sovereignty as stated in the US Constitution?
-
Probably deserves it's own thread, but:
Oklahoma about to reaffirm their sovereignty (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89842)
...and therein lies the problem with Democrats. Why would any politician vote AGAINST reaffirming sovereignty as stated in the US Constitution?
Because, despite the Oath of Office they each take, they don't believe in what the Constitution actually stands for or means. I sometimes wonder if most of them have ever even read the document to begin with.
They don't want the states or the people residing in them to be sovereign. They want serfs, not real citizens.
edited to correct spelling
-
How about the :censored: right to life?
they will have a right to sex, abortions, food, shelter, healthcare, divorce their parents, not to go to church and stuff like that
-
This idiot is damn near the stupidest thing in the Senate. What an effin' idiot. Sen. Patty Murray can't be far behind Boxer on the "Stoopid" scale.
The actual text of this so called treaty can be viewed here (http://untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2001/pdf/03e.pdf)
* edited to eliminate redundancy
-
they will have a right to sex, abortions, food, shelter, healthcare, divorce their parents, not to go to church and stuff like that
Those lucky ones that are allowed to live will have the "right" to turn their parents in for taking them to church or "brainwashing" them with pro-life "rhetoric."
-
Those lucky ones that are allowed to live will have the "right" to turn their parents in for taking them to church or "brainwashing" them with pro-life "rhetoric."
Exactly.
-
I just don't see how this shit is f'n funny anymore. I see a VIOLENT revolution coming a helluva lot sooner than we think. :censored:
h5...and we should start with a surgical strike in California.....
-
I just don't see how this shit is f'n funny anymore. I see a VIOLENT revolution coming a helluva lot sooner than we think. :censored:
I see that happening too.
-
When I read the Constitution, the Fedralist and anti-Federalist Papers, it is clear to me that our founding fathers intended "Treaties" to exist be between Nations; The United States and other sovereign countries.
When did the UN become a soveriegn nation?
The UN is a highly dangerous organization that is NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM anything other than an organization bent on destroying national sovereignty of any and all members.
The US should have never joined it, but since we have, should withdraw from it ASAP.
IMO.
-
The left is all too willing to subjugate themselves and us to the wishes of the UN. Personally I think that she is breaking her oath of office by doing this.
certainly is. we need to hang a few people for thie sort of treason to get it stopped.
-
When I read the Constitution, the Fedralist and anti-Federalist Papers, it is clear to me that our founding fathers intended "Treaties" to exist be between Nations; The United States and other sovereign countries.
When did the UN become a soveriegn nation?
The UN is a highly dangerous organization that is NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM anything other than an organization bent on destroying national sovereignty of any and all members.
The US should have never joined it, but since we have, should withdraw from it ASAP.
IMO.
and I bet they never dreamed a treaty would be used to govern totally domestic things either
-
and I bet they never dreamed a treaty would be used to govern totally domestic things either
I concur.
-
When I read the Constitution, the Fedralist and anti-Federalist Papers, it is clear to me that our founding fathers intended "Treaties" to exist be between Nations; The United States and other sovereign countries.
When did the UN become a soveriegn nation?
The UN is a highly dangerous organization that is NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM anything other than an organization bent on destroying national sovereignty of any and all members.
The US should have never joined it, but since we have, should withdraw from it ASAP.
IMO.
That's why I have no problem with NATO, but a HUGE problem with the UN. NATO is a coalition. The UN is an entity that requires, suggests, and promotes the relinquishing of sovereignty.
-
That's why I have no problem with NATO, but a HUGE problem with the UN. NATO is a coalition. The UN is an entity that requires, suggests, and promotes the relinquishing of sovereignty.
I wish I could give you about a dozen H5s for that.
You will have to settle with the 1 I can give you this hour.
-
I wish I could give you about a dozen H5s for that.
You will have to settle with the 1 I can give you this hour.
That sentiment is, if I'm not mistaken, a consensus on this site. MOST people here believe what I posted there.
-
That sentiment is, if I'm not mistaken, a consensus on this site. MOST people here believe what I posted there.
I hope they do at any rate.
-
That's why I have no problem with NATO, but a HUGE problem with the UN. NATO is a coalition. The UN is an entity that requires, suggests, and promotes the relinquishing of sovereignty.
NATO= national defense.
UN= national intrusion.
-
When I read the Constitution, the Fedralist and anti-Federalist Papers, it is clear to me that our founding fathers intended "Treaties" to exist be between Nations; The United States and other sovereign countries.
When did the UN become a soveriegn nation?
The UN is a highly dangerous organization that is NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM anything other than an organization bent on destroying national sovereignty of any and all members.
The US should have never joined it, but since we have, should withdraw from it ASAP.
IMO.
Bingo, and h5
-
It's just one more step towards a one world government & communism, ruled by the incompetent. This legislation is 180° from what our Constitution says.