Seig Heil the blue UN flag!

Wallew

Moderator
You're gonna love this one. While no one was watching, the Republican leadership had one of it's dupes slip this UN treaty through the Senate without anyone supposedly aware of what was in the treaty package. Yeah, right. Some guy smart enough to convince his consituients to put him in the Senate didn't even know what was in the bill he put forward. No difference between Rep's and Dem's. They are all selling us down the UN river. Can you say 'Forced Relocation'? Here's the almost full story and the link to read the rest of it. Kinda makes me queezy in my stomach. We will all Seig Heil the blue UN flag in the next twenty years, probably a lot sooner. Go down to bottom of the story where it says UN will control of 70% of all earths land mass. What, the other 30% not worth controlling??


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_lamb/20001209_xchla_new_un_tre.shtml

New U.N. treaty ratified quietly
By Henry Lamb © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.

Initially, Senator Thomas' office told callers that the Senator had nothing to do with the ratification. On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties. Senator Thomas has asked the Foreign Relations Committee to explain how, and why, the Desertification Treaty was included in the package.

At the recent climate change talks in the Hague, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) said the treaty had not been ratified, until corrected by one of his staff. Phone calls to Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), and other Senators, caught staffers off guard: Nobody knew how their boss voted on the ratification. They could not know -- there was no recorded vote.

This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1994. It has been locked up in the Foreign Relations Committee since. Normally, treaties of such monumental importance are debated in committee and then forwarded to the Senate floor for further debate and disposition.

Not this time. The treaty appeared in a package of 34 treaties -- most of which were single-issue treaties with single nations, dealing with stolen vehicles, criminals, and the like. The Desertification Treaty, however, is not a single-issue treaty with a single nation.

This treaty is one of several environmental treaties that emerged from the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. One of those treaties, the Convention on Climate Change, was ratified in 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity failed ratification in 1994. The Convention to Combat Desertification was skillfully maneuvered through the Senate to avoid the public reaction which killed the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Desertification Treaty claims jurisdiction over 70%of the earth's land area -- virtually all of the land that is not covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Moreover, this new treaty creates a structure through which all other environmental treaties are supposed to be integrated under a common United Nations implementation regime. A companion treaty is now being developed by the U.N. Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The United Nations is, in fact, creating the structure in international law and, through its extensive bureaucracies, to control the use of all natural resources on earth.

The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on October 18, 2000 -- whether or not it knew what it was doing. On November 17, the Clinton administration delivered the ratification documents to the United Nations. The United States is now bound by the international law that claims the power to dictate land use in 70% of the earth's land.

The name of the treaty implies that it is concerned about deserts -- in fact, it is concerned about all land use. To combat desertification, the treaty seeks to prevent land use that its enforcers think may lead to desertification. Converting forests to pasture, for example, or pasture to row crops, or crop land to subdivisions, are all uses that may lead to desertification, according to literature produced by the United Nations.

There is no distinction between federal land and privately owned land when it comes to land use under the jurisdiction of the U.N. The U.N. sees its role to be the establishment of policy -- it is up to the participating nations to see that the policy is implemented. The recent rash of land acquisition measures promoted by the administration and Congress seeks to get more land under federal ownership. The vast expansion of regulatory control over land use by all federal agencies makes it easier for the United States to comply with its international obligations under a variety of international treaties. This new treaty extends even further the U.S. obligation to control land use.

According to the treaty itself, no reservations can be included in its ratification (Article 37). The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United
Nations.
 
The 30 percent of the land not covered by the Desertification Treaty is what was already covered by the earlier Biodiversity Treaty.

Ladies and Germs, we are royally screwed. International Treaties, under the distorted interpretation of the Constitution our courts use, trump the Bill of Rights. Our Republican Senate has sold us down the river.

A certain writer I know argues that since ratification of the Bill of Rights was the condition the anti-Federalists demanded for accepting the Constitution, if the Bill of Rights gets nullified then the Constitution itself is void, and we either go back to the Articles of Confederation, or we have no social contract at all.
 
Ya... I like to see them try to control the land I own... Endangered species my a$$.. if they try that, then no animal will be able to survive on my property (excepts dogs and cats).

USP45usp

The only thing I have to say is this... let them try to come over here and "enforce" this land treaty. I let the line in the sand slide, due to other options for the time being, when it comes to our "elites" but I will NOT move the line if the blue helmets try to dictate what I can do on or with my land or any other lands in AMERICA! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USP45usp
 
The last line of that story is very interesting.
The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United Nations.

Ignored just like the United States will ignore this entire treaty if and when the UN tries to enforce it.

This is not such a great worry to me. We have enough enemies within our own government without having to import others behatted in blue.
 
Lovely article, nice plot and full of twists and turns. A story worthy of Trevainian.

Now, I have just one question: Why hasn't anyone mentioned finding the souless bastards who delivered this POS to the Senate and charge them with High Crimes and Treason? The Constitution is very clear on the grounds for these charges.
Article III, Section 3.
1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture during the Life of the Person attainted.

Bolding mine. Lib
Once we hang the rotten bastards from the lamp posts outside of the Capitol building, we should simply announce that the treaty is null and void as the signing was done under false pretenses. What will the UN do? Move to Geneva? The Hague? If so, good ridance to bad rubbish!
 
I believe it was Andrew Jackson who said of a Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court has made it's ruling. Now let them enforce it.
The Jackson statement was inappropriate in it's (successful) attempt to block a SCOTUS decision to prevent poor white trash from confiscating the prosperous farms of the Cherokee Nation, the sentiment of the quote is quite relevant.

The UN will make it's decisions....let them enforce them. Molon Labe.
Rich
 
Treaties signed with foreign governments have the same status as federal law. That is, they override state law but not the U.S. constitution.

By the way, it's "Sieg", not "Seig." It means "victory."
 
If treaties were as absolute as some of us think, then the Germans would still be subject to the Treaty of Versailles and the U.S. would still be a member of the League of Nations.

Rich pegged it. It's just like any other law.

It's all about enforcement.
 
Treaties signed with foreign governments have the same status as federal law. That is, they override state law but not the U.S. constitution.

Can you cite any Supreme Court decisions on this? Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This lists the Constitution, federal law, and treaties as all being the "supreme law of the land". Clearly, all three trump state law, but it's unclear (at least to me) how conflicts between treaties and federal law are to be resolved.
 
Make no mistake....

Rich,
No offense, but I don't see a whole lot of 'prosperous Cherokee Nation farms' currently owned by indians, do you? Wasn't the Cherokee Nation the group that was forced to travel what eventually became 'The Trail of Tears'? So much for SCOTUS enforcement.

RHC,
Yah, three years of German and I'm still dislexic when it comes to SIEG. Go figure!

TheBluesMan,
Make no mistake about it. We ARE (and were) part of the League of Nations. It's just called 'The UNITED NATIONS' now. And not only are we part of it, we are the cash engine that makes all the United Nations programs possible. At one time, all of this was hidden from the public. Why? Because the public was considerably more civic minded in the past and would have thrown the socialist bums out (remember the McCarthy hearings and 'The Red Menace'?). Now we are all just worried about where our next pay check is coming from, how much money we can make on the stock market and how we can 'get ahead of the Joneses and stay there'.

Folks, I agree that enforcement MAY be a problem, particularly in the 'Outlands'(aka rural America) of the US. But, remember that these laws weren't passed so that our generation would fight against them. All these laws are passed so that in the coming years, after all of us are either dead and gone or too old to do anything about it, that's when the UN will drop dime on us. And all they will say to us is "We haven't been enforcing this law because we felt that it would be construed as ...(whatever term they choose to use). But we just have to now for the safety of 'da children'(or whatever their mantra is in the future)." But make no mistake, these people are patient and are willing to wait until there is LITTLE OR NO OPPOSITION to what they are going to do in this country. And then the UN will rule their 'ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT'.
 
Wallew-
You're absolutely correct, of course. While I don't mean to make light of this treaty, my point was simply that it ain't over 'till it's over. My point is actually supported by your statement: Jackson told the SC to feel free to enforce their judgement; they couldn't. I simply offer the UN the same opportunity here. ;)

On the serious side, I'd really appreciate an independent link to this treaty and it's signing: I like WND, but sometimes their "pronouncements" need to be taken with a grain of salt. Anybody notice there wasn't a single problem with the Electoral College votes today?
Rich
 
OK-
Now I'm curious, so I did some digging in the Congressional Record. It was ratified by a hand vote. However, here's some language that helps, uh, "fill out" WND's report:
(a) Understandings.--The advice and consent of the Senate is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification of the Convention and shall be binding on the President:
[snip]
[Funding Refused]
[snip]
(3) United states land management.--The United States understands that it is a ``developed country party'' as defined in Article 1 of the Convention, and that it is not required to prepare a national action program pursuant to Part III, Section 1, of the Convention. The United States also understands that no changes to its existing land management practices and programs will be required to meet its obligations under Articles 4 or 5 of the Convention.
(4) Legal process for amending the convention.--In accordance with Article 34(4), any additional regional implementation annex to the Convention or any amendment to any regional implementation annex to the Convention shall enter into force for the United States only upon the deposit of a corresponding instrument of ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession.
(5) Dispute settlement.--The United States declines to accept as compulsory either of the dispute settlement means set out in Article 28(2), and understands that it will not be bound by the outcome, findings, conclusions or recommendations of a conciliation process initiated under Article 28(6). For any dispute arising from this Convention, the United States does not recognize or accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
(b) Declarations.--The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations, which shall be binding on the President:
(1) Consultations.--It is the sense of the Senate that the Executive Branch should consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate about the possibility of United States participation in future negotiations concerning this Convention, and in particular, negotiation of any Protocols to this Convention.
[snip]
(2) Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America that is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.

[[Page S10666]]

The fact that a reporter is on our side does not grant us reprieve from our obligation to think and research independently. ;) Let's face it, the WND report would have you believe that the UN now controls a major portion of the North American land mass....and not a single main stream reporter caught it? C'mon, the media may be liberal, but do you think Ted Turner would have turned this story down? This Treaty appears to deal mainly with problems on the African Continent.

Finally, you would think that the UN Secretary General might have mentioned this momentous victory in his comments on the treaty, the very day of Senate Ratification: http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/pressrel/showpressrel.php?pr=press18_12_00
Rich
 
wallew

You probly have no idea of what my ancestors "Cherokee" went trough.

Yes we had prosperous farms then, "And we the ancestors are still feeding you, you just don`t know it." we were not a waring people. Yes we were forced on the "Trail of Tears" and thousands of my people lost lives, because they were peace loving people, they just bent over and took it.

But this Cherokee ain`t very peaceful and won`t bend over when somebody tries to take my rights away. This is my Nation and no "One World Order" or this US Government is going to take away any of my rights.

Thank You very much. :D :p
 
The bottom line....

Rich,
After all you said, it just proves that WE DID ratify this treaty. All the reservations and inclusions mean exactly DIDDLY. Reread the last paragraph to my posting. Here it is again.

"According to the treaty itself, no reservations can be included in its ratification (Article 37). The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United
Nations."

So, we did ratify this treaty and all our reservations mean exactly squat. I mean, what, they were going to pass this treaty and say to our faces, "WE TURN THE US OVER TO THE UN". They would all be run out of this country on a rail. So, they include all sorts of 'reservations' so they can say, "We agreed, but only with PART of this." WHEN, the UN goes to use this treaty, we may complain about it with 'but we had reservations in what we passed' and then the UN World Court points to Article 37 and say 'No reservations'. And then the WC asks, "Did you or did you not ratify this treaty?" You just proved we did. So, by your own proof, we now have the UN to control most of our private land. Wars have been started for less.

Again, we get back to enforcement. I cannot stress enough that enforcement becomes moot if UN controls 85%+ of the US population. Hey, the way we are going, our 'leaders' are going to GIVE THIS COUNTRY to the UN, lock, stock and barrel. And NOBODY here in US will lift a finger, as long as they keep getting their paycheck and can sit back and watch the boob tube.

R9mmHP,
Actually, I was born in Oklahoma City and am VERY MUCH aware of the colorful and painful history of the Cherokee and many other Nations. Many family friends over the years were leaders of their different groups (I don't use tribe, but can't remember correct word). One of my favorite family pictures shows me (age 5)standing next a family friend, in full regalia, including a headdress that dropped to his knees. Plus, he was the first man I had ever met who had hair longer than my Mom. So, don't assume.
 
Wallew-
I'm not going to argue this with you while your rhetoric is so heated. I think it's a bit preposterous to posit that we quietly turned over some huge portion of our nation's land control to the UN and no-one but World Net Daily took notice. The conspiracy required is of Illuminati proportions and I'm not buying.

You correctly say that the Senate ratified this treaty. I point out that they refused funding, refused to recognize the jusrisdiction of the International Court in disputes, refused to delegate to the Executive approval of the implementation, refused to accept any changes to US land use policy, and made their consent subordinate to the Constitution. You argue that it's too late because the whole of the treaty is now in effect, with UN Authority exceeding that of the Constitution and the Congress. That's an interesting leap of logic for me.
YMMV
Rich

ps: you did remember the right word for the American Indan Groups: "Nation". I used the less appreciated "tribe"
 
Wallew,

...so if the US claims reservations to this "impending takeover", and the UN says "No reservations" and we reply "Get Stuffed", then just how is the UN going to enforce its will? A company of Kenyan light infantry backed up by a Canadian weapons platoon and a squad of Fijian MP's? Have you ever checked just who the military enforcement arm of the UN has been for the span of its existance, at least whenever weapons heavier than Daisy Red Ryders are required? The UN can't piss off the USA; we might call in our markers and tell the pack of whiners to look for a new HQ because we're terminating their lease in NYC.
 
Posters here keep assuming a scenario in which the U.N. attempts to enforce this treaty on an unwilling U.S. government. That's not what we should worry about.

What we need to worry about is when FEDGOV agencies promulgate a boatload of new regulations pursuant to the treaty. Americans will be faced with the same situation as what happened several years back when some residents of North Dakota objected to federal regs related to preserving a certain kind of goose (I don't remember what kind). The Dakotans argued that since these geese only moved between North Dakota and Canada, no interstate commerce was involved therefore FEDGOV had no authority. Not so fast, the Supremes ruled: the U.S. had a treaty with Canada regarding preservation of these geese. Treaties are the law of the land therefore _for that reason_ the regs were Constitutional, 10th Amendment be damned.

Since Bushy won this year's beauty contest I think it will be a little while before we see the other shoe drop on this one, but it will happen.
 
No 'Big Fight' scenario here....

Guys,
You apparently misunderstand my position. The Fed Gov has been giving away its authority on all sorts of things in this country to UN. All I've ever said is that one layer at a time, one subject at a time, our Fed Gov is giving away the store, and financing it by giving BILLIONS of dollars to the UN. And this treaty will be funded quietly, just like they passed this treaty, without anybody looking.

Rich,
This isn't heated. My point is that Americans ARE law abiding citizens as you have spoken up in support forever. The sad part is there are now thousands of laws on the books that have been put there at the request of the UN.

We ARE losing this fight. Don't think so? What's being taught in our PUBLIC schools? Why has Christianity been replaced in our schools with secular humanism, which is just as much a religion as Christianity? Anyone who disagrees should take a long hard look at whats happened to our Second Amendment 'Guarantees' over the past fifty years. Am I wrong?
 
Back
Top