Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 10:31:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101814 Posts in 2375 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law  (Read 68811 times)
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #250 on: October 13, 2016, 12:43:13 PM »

"It was the last event that I'm going to be doing as first lady for Let Girls Learn and I had the pleasure of spending hours talking to some of the most amazing young women you will ever meet — young girls here in the U.S. and all around the world. And we talked about their hopes and their dreams. We talked about their aspirations. See many of these girls have faced unthinkable obstacles just to attend school. Jeopardizing their personal safety, their freedom, risking the rejection of their families and communities. So, I thought it would be important to remind these young women how valuable and precious they are.

I wanted them to understand that the measure of any society is how it treats its women and girls."

Spoken like the wife of the new head of the United Nations. Nice adjustment to Gandhi's quote as well, assuming women to be inherently "vulnerable."
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39821


« Reply #251 on: December 25, 2016, 04:00:16 PM »



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPDB3sYRWJI
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39821


« Reply #252 on: December 28, 2016, 11:07:36 PM »


Josh Rogin
Inside the coming war between the United States and the United Nations
By Josh Rogin December 28 at 7:01 AM
U.N. Security Council passes resolution on Israeli settlements
Play Video3:36
For the first time in 36 years, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution critical of Israel's Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The United States abstained. (Reuters)

Even before Donald Trump’s inauguration as president, Congress is planning to escalate the clash over the U.N. Security Council’s anti-Israel resolution into a full-on conflict between the United States and the United Nations. If Trump embraces the strategy — and all signals indicate he will — the battle could become the Trump administration’s first confrontation with a major international organization, with consequential but largely unpredictable results.

Immediately after the Obama administration abstained Friday from a vote to condemn Israeli settlements as illegal, which passed the Security Council by a vote of 14 to zero, Republicans and Democrats alike criticized both the United Nations and the U.S. government for allowing what Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) called “a one-sided, biased resolution.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee for the State Department and foreign operations, pledged to lead an effort to withhold the U.S. funding that makes up 22 percent of the U.N.’s annual operating budget.

“The U.N. has made it impossible for us to continue with business as usual,” Graham told me right after the vote. “Almost every Republican will feel like this is a betrayal of Israel and the only response that we have is the power of purse.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, never shy about working with Republicans against the Obama administration, told Graham: “Please stand with us, it’s time to take the gloves off,” according to Graham.

In the days since the vote, three Republican senators and their staffs have been working up options behind the scenes for how to convert their threat into action: Graham, Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.). They believe they will have support for quick Senate action from both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and incoming Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a strong supporter of Israel.

There are several options under consideration, two senior Senate aides working on the issue told me. Some are considered “micro” options, such as passing a resolution that would bar any funding that might go to implementing the anti-settlement resolution. Other options include withdrawing the United States from U.N. organizations such as UNESCO or passing legislation to protect settlers who are American citizens and might be vulnerable to consequences of the resolution.

Withholding U.S. contributions to the United Nations could be done in different ways. There are discretionary funds Congress can easily cut off, but the bulk of U.S. support is obligatory, mandated by treaties that Congress has ratified, making them de facto U.S. law. Depending on how drastic the funding cuts are to be, Congress may have to pass new legislation to undo some of the obligations.

Senators are also looking at ways to withhold U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority or perhaps punish the Palestine Liberation Organization representative office in Washington. Republicans in the Senate don’t plan to wait until Trump is actually in office; aides said to expect action as soon as senators return to Washington next week.

“We will make a very strong attempt to do something immediately,” one senior GOP senate aide said. “It is a real moment to reexamine the relationship with the United Nations and what it really does.”

Not all involved agree on whether the effort is simply about pressuring the Security Council to reverse course on the settlements resolution, or to fundamentally challenge a broad range of U.N. practices and reorient the U.S. approach to the United Nations overall.

Rick Santorum, who served in the Senate the last time the United States refused to pay its dues in full, told me that the coming crisis in U.S.-U.N. relations is the perfect chance for those who want to dismantle the organization altogether.

“This has opened up the opportunity for those of us who are very anti-U.N., who think the it has passed its prime, it’s not serving any really good purpose, it’s not helping legitimate governments around the world and it’s outlived its usefulness,” he said. “To the extent we can deconstruct it, the better.”

During the presidential campaign, most observers predicted that if elected, Trump would focus his international-organization ire on NATO, which he often criticized as being obsolete and a burden on U.S. taxpayers. Now, Santorum said, the United Nations could be first up for action.

“The focus will come off NATO and will move squarely onto the U.N.,” he said. “It’s going to be a very raucous time. Barack Obama, with this move, did more damage to the United Nations than he did to Israel.”

Some Republicans in Congress are comparing the coming U.S. response to the anti-settlement resolution to the U.S. opposition in 1975 to a U.N. General Assembly resolution that equated Zionism with racism. U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan led the U.S. opposition to that resolution and gave a famous speech defending the Jewish state from international persecution. That resolution was eventually repealed.

Other Republican foreign-policy experts see the coming battle as more akin to the effort by then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) to withhold portions of America’s U.N. dues in order to pressure the body into reforms. After years of tension, Helms eventually joined with then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) to pass legislation restoring U.S. funding in exchange for a compromise on reforms.

[The Obama administration fires a dangerous parting shot]

President Clinton signed the Helms-Biden legislation, and the Clinton administration negotiated many but not all of the reforms with U.N. leadership. In January 2000, Helms became the first U.S. senator ever to speak directly to the U.N. Security Council, after the deal was struck.


“The interests of the United States are better served by demanding reform and seeing that reform takes place than by removing our influence from the U.N.,” Helms said at the time. “It may surprise people to know that I advocate the reform of the United Nations, not its abolishment.”

Danielle Pletka, who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff under Helms, said the lesson of that episode is that taking on the United Nations can be done, but not without costs and the risk of retaliation. The United Nations could stop doing things that the United States sees as important. Allied countries that value U.N. operations will be upset if those programs are affected. Also, the dues don’t go just go away.

“When you don’t pay, it’s like a mortgage, the bill just racks up. At the end of the day, we negotiated with the United Nations, but we paid a tax,” Pletka said. “This is a great opportunity for Donald Trump to show us he can negotiate the art of the deal. The Congress can give him leverage.”

There are signs that the Trump administration might be willing to make that deal. Its nominees for secretary of state and U.N. ambassador, Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley, respectively have no ideological baggage on the issue. Trump himself tweeted that the United Nations “has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!”

The Security Council’s anti-settlement resolution has opened up a Pandora’s box in Washington, allowing anyone with a grievance against the world body to have their day in the sun. But most in Washington believe that despite the body’s problems, the United States is better off with a functioning United Nations and should seek as much influence there as possible. Congress and the Trump administration must be strategic and thoughtful as they chart out what seems to be an inevitable clash.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14512


« Reply #253 on: December 29, 2016, 09:54:07 AM »

Defund it and kick it out of the US. I bet Somalia has lots of room for the new UN complex.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14512


« Reply #254 on: December 29, 2016, 09:44:11 PM »

ian bremmerVerified account
‏@ianbremmer
2016 UNGA Resolutions Against
Israel: 20
Syria: 1
Iran: 1
N Korea: 1
Russia: 1

Seems imbalanced.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6912


« Reply #255 on: January 07, 2017, 07:30:19 AM »

It needs us (to fund its corruption and globalist financial and political interests as well as those from countries that skim - no not skim milk) more then we need it. 


Andrew McCarthy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443642/us-leave-united-nations.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8682


« Reply #256 on: January 07, 2017, 02:38:41 PM »

It needs us (to fund its corruption and globalist financial and political interests as well as those from countries that skim - no not skim milk) more then we need it. 
Andrew McCarthy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443642/us-leave-united-nations.


Repeal and replace, ASAP, s'il vous plaît.

The new organization should have entrance rules so tight that the US doesn't qualify until we pass our own reforms, get5 back some freedoms and balance our budget.  And if we host it, we host it in Peoria or Topeka, not NYC, equal distant between Europe and Asia.

What has the UN done lately about the South China Sea?  How are they doing on Middle East peace?  Did they stop the nuclear program in NK yet?   China and Russia have veto power, are you kidding?  Qaddafi was the head of the Human Rights Commission.  George Orwell couldn't have come up with that.  And the UN has the worst charity record on the planet. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6912


« Reply #257 on: January 07, 2017, 02:58:41 PM »

The new organization should have entrance rules so tight that the US doesn't qualify until we pass our own reforms, get5 back some freedoms and balance our budget.  And if we host it, we host it in Peoria or Topeka, not NYC, equal distant between Europe and Asia.

 grin

The Aleutian islands would be good too. 

1)  Not far from North Korea .  Maybe , just maybe, maybe then the phonies might do something about that  Kim Jong-un in N Korea.  That's right the kid whose father let 1,000,000 of his fellow countrymen starve to death!  Oh but israel is evil.  rolleyes

2)  and some kodiak bears.   Maybe the bears could be trained to eat communists and socialists though salmon probably do taste better.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39821


« Reply #258 on: January 26, 2017, 09:17:45 PM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/united-nations-trump-administration.html?_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39821


« Reply #259 on: February 20, 2017, 10:48:38 AM »

"Haley’s Comet" | Editorial of The New York Sun | February 16, 2017 | on Nikki Haley

A star is born is our reaction to the first press briefing by President Trump’s new ambassador at the United Nations. The ex-governor of South Carolina was ridiculed by the Left when the president first sent her nomination up to the Hill, owing to her alleged lack of foreign policy chops. She certainly rang the wake up gong for that crowd this morning, after emerging from her first Security Council monthly meeting devoted to the Middle East. Tough as nails but with a smile and a layer of Southern charm.

The ambassador had just come from the regular monthly Security Council on Middle East issues. She said it was her first such meeting, and “it was a bit strange.” The Security Council, she said, is supposed to discuss how to maintain international peace and security. But the meeting, she said, was not about Hezbollah’s illegal buildup of rockets in Lebanon, it was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists, it was not how we defeat ISIS, it was not how we hold Beshar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of thousands of civilians.

“No,” she said, “instead the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated month after month for decades. I am here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore. I am here to underscore to the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I am here to emphasize that the United States is determined to stand up to the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias.”

The ambassador made clear that the Trump administration will not support the kind of resolution from which the Obama administration’s ambassador — Samantha Power — shamefully abstained, though Mrs. Haley was too polite to name the humiliated Ms. Power. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”

“Incredibly,” Mrs. Haley said, “the U.N. department of political affairs has an entire division devoted entirely to Palestinian affairs. Imagine that. There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches form North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors, and it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us. The double standards are breathtaking.”

The ambassador warned that it is “the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change,” and said America will not hesitate to speak out in defense of its friend in Israel. All this was going on while the press was questioning President Trump on what he was going to do about anti-Semitism. If his ambassador to the world body is any example, the answer is plenty. She has the principles of a Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the grit of a John Bolton, and the star power of a Jeane Kirkpatrick, and in her first press briefing she certainly made her point.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39821


« Reply #260 on: February 26, 2017, 10:20:51 AM »

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Populism--VI--Populism-versus-populism-8592

"So why is the Paris Agreement an issue for Trump? Because, knowing all of this, Obama signed it anyway. He calculated that climate-change pain could be imposed without Congress’s consent—just as he unilaterally subjected the nation to the security risks of the Iran nuclear deal, another multilateral agreement that was never ratified under U.S. law but was “endorsed” by the United Nations (specifically, by the Security Council).

"Alas, Obama’s calculation was shrewd. Transnational progressives have developed cagey ways to circumvent democratic obstacles to their globalist agenda. International agreements are drafted to include terms purporting that they “enter into force” when a certain modest number of nations sign them, regardless of whether this is sufficient to bind any particular signatory nation under its domestic law. The Paris Agreement, for example, is said to have “entered into force” on November 4, 2016, on the strength of acceptance by a mere fifty-five nations (out of 197 that are “parties to the convention”). Once an agreement is “in force,” international lawyers and bureaucrats begin claiming that it has created “norms” with which even non-signatory nations must comply under “customary international law.”

"Moreover, another international agreement, the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties, holds that a nation’s signature on a treaty, even if not adequate for ratification under that nation’s law, obliges that nation to refrain from any action that could undermine the treaty’s objectives. Since the United States has never ratified the Convention on Treaties, you might think its provisions are irrelevant to our consideration. But the post–World War II web of multilateral conventions is the maddening thicket of transnational progressivism, where “the law” is whatever end progressives seek to achieve—and the principle of democratic consent is a quaint oddity. The U.S. State Department, a devotee of international legal structures despite their erosions of American sovereignty, tells us that because several other nations have ratified the Convention on Treaties, “many” of its provisions are now binding customary international law even if the treaty remains unratified. Thus—voila!—the conceit that presidents (progressive ones, anyway) may unilaterally subject the nation to international obligations, even ruinous burdens, without any input, much less approval, by the people’s elected representatives."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39821


« Reply #261 on: March 14, 2017, 04:29:17 PM »

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14414/good-trump-secretary-state-threatens-leave-hank-berrien?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=031417-news&utm_campaign=position4
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6912


« Reply #262 on: March 29, 2017, 05:37:16 PM »

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/new-sheriff-in-town-nikki-haley-is-blowing-up-obamas-lead-from-behind-un-strategy
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 11:02:27 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!