Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 04:48:00 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105830 Posts in 2395 Topics by 1093 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* 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 79894 times)
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 764


« 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: 41586


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



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPDB3sYRWJI
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41586


« 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: 15342


« 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: 15342


« 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: 7621


« 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: 9208


« 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: 7621


« 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: 41586


« 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: 41586


« 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: 41586


« 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: 41586


« 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: 7621


« 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
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #263 on: June 02, 2017, 08:54:35 AM »

"Consider it a campaign promise rightly kept."  Unconstitutional by design, a feature not a bug.

It takes 4 years to get out of a 'non-binding agreement'.  What??!  Sounds binding.

The agreement holds us to a different standard and cost than our economic partners and competitors.

It's called a "treaty" everywhere else but an "Accord" in the US because liberals control the language and if we called it a treaty it would require 2/3rds of the Senate to confirm.  That pesky constitution again!

Pres. Obama entered the US in the accord with lame duck timing, Sept. 3 2016.  The only election referendum on the issue was Trump's win, asked and answered.

The cost estimate is $100 trillium - likely to go up from there.

The temperature mitigation through the end of the century, year 2100, is 0.3 degrees C by UN models and math, likely overstated by seven-fold, within the margin of error rounding to zero.

There is zero chance that CO2 will be our biggest worry in 2010.  Carbon dioxide will still be essential for life and still have a concentration in the atmosphere of less than one part per thousand.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7621


« Reply #264 on: June 02, 2017, 10:09:28 AM »

""The cost estimate is $100 trillium - likely to go up from there.

The temperature mitigation through the end of the century, year 2100, is 0.3 degrees C by UN models and math, likely overstated by seven-fold, within the margin of error rounding to zero.

There is zero chance that CO2 will be our biggest worry in 2010.  Carbon dioxide will still be essential for life and still have a concentration in the atmosphere of less than one part per thousand."

Doug,

I also love the LEFTIST mantra about leaving the Paris conglomeration of empty promises is that this will kill jobs and clean energy would be boon for the economy and create millions of jobs.

If clean energy is such a great business then let some of these big mouths put *their money* into it.

Let Musk pay for it!  Let Zuckerdouchbag pay for it!  Let GE pay for it.  Let Disney pay for it!  let Jeff Sachs pay for it from his book money!

Come on - they keep telling us what great business this is.
 
Why does it have to be tax payer money?



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #265 on: June 26, 2017, 03:16:02 PM »

Pope Francis called for “a one world government” and “political authority” this week, arguing that the creation of the one world government is needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
Speaking with Ecuador’s “El Universo” newspaper, the Pope said that the United Nations doesnt have enough power and must be granted full governmental control “for the good of humanity.”
https://archive.fo/LM08L#selection-807.0-903.216


I have done enough defending of the Catholic Church. My last observation attending is how badly their attendance has fallen. Christianity should be a force for GOOD in the world.  This man should not use his questionable authority in one area to make ignorant proclamations in others. 

The United Nations is a complete failure, should be disbanded, the US shouldn't be in it, rename it an Israel hate group, and the Catholic Church should go under a money audit and be prosecuted under RICO statute for their own shameful behavior and coverup.  Maybe then they won't have time for supporting failed governance and economics. 

I wonder what portion of their massive money machine goes to pay for priests preying on children.  Maybe he should speak out on that instead of siding with the abortion crowd on every other issue.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41586


« Reply #266 on: June 26, 2017, 04:49:34 PM »

Oy vey!  shocked rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15342


« Reply #267 on: June 26, 2017, 04:52:12 PM »

Pope Francis called for “a one world government” and “political authority” this week, arguing that the creation of the one world government is needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
Speaking with Ecuador’s “El Universo” newspaper, the Pope said that the United Nations doesnt have enough power and must be granted full governmental control “for the good of humanity.”
https://archive.fo/LM08L#selection-807.0-903.216


I have done enough defending of the Catholic Church. My last observation attending is how badly their attendance has fallen. Christianity should be a force for GOOD in the world.  This man should not use his questionable authority in one area to make ignorant proclamations in others. 

The United Nations is a complete failure, should be disbanded, the US shouldn't be in it, rename it an Israel hate group, and the Catholic Church should go under a money audit and be prosecuted under RICO statute for their own shameful behavior and coverup.  Maybe then they won't have time for supporting failed governance and economics. 

I wonder what portion of their massive money machine goes to pay for priests preying on children.  Maybe he should speak out on that instead of siding with the abortion crowd on every other issue.



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-are-witnessing-today-st.-john-paul-iis-prophesy-of-an-anti-church-cathol

We are witnessing St. John Paul II’s prophesy of an ‘anti-Church’: Catholic priest

 Amoris Laetitia , Anti-Church , Anti-Gospel , Catholic , Linus Clovis , Our Lady Of Fatima , Pope Francis , Pope John Paul Ii , Rome Life Forum 2017

ROME, May 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- St. John Paul II’s 1976 prophetic warning about the rise of an “anti-Church” that would preach an “anti-Gospel” is being fulfilled today by leaders within the Catholic Church, even at the highest levels, said a priest in a talk given at a Catholic conference today in Rome.

Fr. Linus Clovis of Family Life International said in his talk at the Rome Life Forum, organized by Voice of the Family, that the anti-Gospel of the anti-Church is often “indistinguishable from secular ideology, which has overturned both the natural law and the Ten Commandments.”

Image
Fr. Linus Clovis at the 2015 Rome Life Forum. Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews
“This anti-Gospel, which seeks to elevate the individual’s will to consume, to pleasure and to power over the will of God, was rejected by Christ when tempted in the wilderness. Disguised as ‘human rights,’ it has reappeared, in all its luciferian hubris, to promulgate a narcissistic, hedonistic attitude that rejects any constraint except that imposed by man-made laws,” he said.

Read Fr. Clovis' full talk here.

During his visit to America 41 years ago, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, the archbishop of Cracow who two years later would become Pope John Paul II, delivered his prophetic message in Philadelphia, on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of American Independence. Wojtyle said:

We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.

We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.
Clovis said that while the rise of the anti-Church has been happening slowly but steadily over the past decades, it’s emergence has been especially noticeable in the last few years.

“For the past half-century, there has been a growing crisis in the Church, arising as much from a lack of clear and unambiguous teaching, as from the climate of dissent among priests, religious and laity. Within the contemporary Church, the crisis has been brought to fever pitch, if not breaking point, by the rejection of Our Lord’s yes/no paradigm and the undermining of established doctrinal positions by protean pastoral practises,” he said.

He noted that there is a sense among faithful Catholics that “things ecclesiastic and catholic are falling apart and a pastoral anarchy has been loosed upon the Church.” He said that a “hidden exercise of power” is currently at work within the Church that is fueling such anarchy.

[It] can reform the marriage annulment process without the customary consultation of the appropriate Roman dicasteries; issue a broad and scathing rebuke of the Roman Curia in a Christmas address; purge a dicastery’s membership, which effectively vitiate the influence of its Prefect who had stood firmly against innovations injurious both to the teachings on marriage and to the tenets of the liturgy; cripple the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate; and shut down the Melbourne campus of the John Paul II Institute.
Clovis said that accompanying the rise of the anti-Church is a direct assault on the very “pillar of creation” and foundation of the social order, namely, the truth of the relationship between man and woman as expressed in marriage and the family. He recalled how Sister Lucia, one of the Fatima visionaries, once said that “the final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about marriage and the family.”

“It is well known that any tampering with a keystone risks the collapse of the entire building," he said. “The keystone, the basic cell of society is marriage and family.”

And the anti-Church is working its hardest to undermine that keystone.

“With the tacit acceptance of contraception and divorce, the recent ‘merciful’ embracing of remarried civil divorcees and the benign nod to same-sex ‘marriage,’ the keystone has been tampered with and the omega point has been reached,” Clovis said.

He noted how atheistic secularism, which fuels the anti-Church, has been “working for the demise of the family, its driving spirit being the LGBT ideology; its public face, ‘political correctness;’ its Sunday dress, ‘inclusivity and non-judgmentalism.’

He warned Catholics how the anti-Church will try to deceive the faithful by passing itself off as the true Church.

It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology.

Should the anti-Church succeed in commandeering all the space of the true Church, the rights of man will supplant the rights of God through the desecration of the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of apostolic power.

Thus, politicians who vote for abortion and same-sex “marriage” will be welcome at the Communion rails; husbands and wives who have abandoned their spouses and children and entered into adulterous relationships will be admitted to the sacraments; priests and theologians who publicly reject Catholic doctrines and morals will be at liberty to exercise ministry and to spread dissent, while faithful Catholics will be marginalised, maligned and discredited at every turn.  Thus, the anti-Church would succeed in achieving its goal of dethroning God as Creator, Saviour and Sanctifier and replacing Him with man the self-creator, the self-saviour and the self-sanctifier.
Clovis said that the anti-Church works to achieve its goal of overcoming the true Church by intimidating the faithful, including the laity, priests, and bishops, into submission.

To achieve its objectives, the anti-Church, in collaboration with the secular powers, uses the law and media to browbeat the true Church into submission. By adroit use of the media, the activists of the anti-Church have managed to intimidate bishops, clergy and most of the Catholic press into silence.  Equally, the lay faithful are terrorised by fear of the hostility, ridicule and hate that would be visited upon them should they object to the imposition of LGBT ideology.

For example, in 2015, the congregation of St Nicholas of Myra in the Archdiocese of Dublin gave a standing ovation to their parish priest when he declared from the pulpit that he was gay and urged them to support same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Irish referendum. It is not difficult to imagine the kind of treatment that an objector would have received. Thus, the oppressive influence of the anti-Church is most clearly seen at work when a person is fearful to openly uphold God’s revelation about homosexuality, abortion or contraception in their parish community.
Adherents to the anti-Church especially target priests and bishops to tow the line of the anti-Gospel, knowing that once they are brought into submission they can influence countless souls away from the true Church. 

Priests and bishops are the immediate and more natural leaders of the laity and they, above all, are caught in the broadening spectrum of fear generated by the anti-Church.  Additionally, because of the clerical vow of obedience and respect, their fear, being reverential, is greatly aggravated, especially when they find their ranks divided; their unity split; long standing sacramental disciplines violated; canon law ignored; their evangelising spirit dismissed as proselytism and solemn nonsense.

In regard to their persons, they are labelled as little monsters throwing stones at poor sinners, or who reduce the sacrament of reconciliation to a torture chamber or, hide behind the Church’s teachings, sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality. 

As clerical sons, they see themselves as less deserving of a papal embrace than Italy’s arch-abortionist Emma Bonino and even less worthy of rehabilitation than renowned false prophet and global population and abortion advocate, Paul Ehrlich. 

As priests, they are told they owe an apology to gays and that the ‘great majority’ of Catholic marriages they would have blessed are invalid; in addition, they are called sayers of prayers and, for considering Mass attendance and frequent confession as important, are branded Pelagians. 

As Catholics, knowing that the Five First Saturdays were requested in reparation for blasphemy against our most Blessed Lady, they are personally affronted by the scurrilous musings that, on Calvary, where She became the Mother of all those redeemed by Christ, the Holy Virgin of Fatima perhaps, desired in Her heart to say to the Lord “Lies! Lies! I was deceived.”  As ‘trees of the forest shake before the wind,’ so clerical hearts quake with fear at the possibility that they could actually be more Catholic than the Pope!
Clovis called Pope Francis’ influence within the Church a “great and true blessing” since the Pope’s ambiguous teaching have prompted the anti-Church to emerge from the shadows in clear view of all the faithful. This now gives the faithful a clear choice regarding which master they will follow.

“A hidden conflict has been raging in the Church for over one hundred years: a conflict explicitly revealed to Pope Leo XIII, partially contained by St. Pius X, unleashed at Vatican II.  Under Francis, the first Jesuit pope, the first pope from the Americas and the first pope whose priestly ordination was in the New Rite, it is now full blown, with the potential of rendering the Church smaller but more faithful,” he said.

He said that Francis’ most recent Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is an example of a force at work within the Church today that helps establish the dividing line between the anti-Church and the true Church of Jesus Christ.

“The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is the catalyst that has divided not only bishops and Episcopal Conferences from each other but, priests from their bishops and from each other, and the laity, anxious and confused,” he said.

“As a Trojan horse, Amoris Laetitia spells spiritual ruin for the entire Church. As a gauntlet thrown down it calls for courage in overcoming fear. In either case, it is now poised to separate the anti-Church of which St. John Paul II spoke from the Church that Christ founded.  As the separation begins to take place, each one of us, like the angels, will have to decide for himself whether he would rather be wrong with Lucifer than right without him,” he added.

Clovis tied his main points to the 100th anniversary of Our Lady appearing in Fatima. He said that she “proposed a strategy which, if adopted would secure the salvation of a great number of souls.”

“The strategy required that, in order to ‘appease God, who was already so deeply offended,’ three major conditions should be satisfied, namely, a reform of morals with full adherence to natural and divine laws, the Five First Saturdays devotion and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,” he said.

“Then to further emphasise how perilous the approaching times would be, the Virgin, with motherly concern, warned of the consequences of ignoring Her message: wars, Russia spreading her errors, the persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.  She, nonetheless, concluded Her message with a vestige of hope: ‘in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph and a period of peace will be given to the world,’” he added.

Clovis said that Catholics seeking to be faithful to Christ and the Church he founded need not be afraid of the present turmoil they are witnessing.

“At Baptism, we became members of the Church Militant and, at Confirmation, soldiers of Christ; we, therefore, have been recruited and armed for deadly combat against the three implacable enemies of our souls: the world, the flesh and the devil,” he said.

“Recognising that ‘we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places,’ we fight, like the Apostles, taking the martyrs for our models and Christ Jesus, Himself as our reward,” he added.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9208


« Reply #268 on: July 12, 2017, 12:46:41 PM »

US withdrawal from the Paris accord screwed up the the press release coming out of the G20.  A site in Australia picked up the real communique as intended:

“We, the leaders of the G20 (and thousands of hangers-on), met in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7-8, at cost to taxpayers of hundreds of millions of euros.

“We remain amazed and grateful that the world’s media continues to cover this luxurious circus, unrivalled in production of inanities, year after year. We, as the world’s premier body for economic discussion, are proud of our record in lifting waffle to levels of sophistication unimaginable in an earlier era.

“The media and the political class can achieve more together than by acting alone.
“We once again met at a time of profound change amid sustained continuity. We are determined to calibrate and co-ordinate our policy frameworks to foster economic growth that is confident, strong and nice. Growth has been too wonky and lopsided, with an insufficient level of sharing.

“We undertake to consult often, widely and effectively, via landline and mobile telephone, Facebook messenger, WeChat (in China), including through use of GIFs where appropriate.

“We have come together as one to make totally unverifiable undertakings in support of three appealing nouns that we agreed at last year’s Hangzhou summit in China: resilience, sustainability, and fun. In the interests of avoiding international awkwardness we have resolved never to raise, discuss or even allude to the rationale for, or outcome of, the British general election earlier this year in front of the British Prime Minister Theresa May.

“We acknowledge that Ivanka is amazing. She is so amazing. She is absolutely terrific. We also fully support the aspirations of women and girls and applaud in particular Saudi Arabia’s undertaking to make women’s issues the centrepiece of its summit in 2020.

“We condemn actions by North Korea that risk impairing global harmony. Sad!

“We have secured the services of distinguished diplomat Hans Blix, who will spearhead a cross-country delegation charged with conveying our sentiments to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. We indicate in the strongest terms our determination to defend western, eastern, southern and northern values.

“We extend an invitation to South Australia’s Premier Jay Weatherill, and his 17 media advisers, to update the G20 on the success of his government’s bold climate saving initiatives at the 2018 summit in Buenos Aires, where, inspired by practice at APEC, we will dress up as lithium batteries for an official photograph to signal our support.

“We acknowledge differences of opinion among members on the efficacy of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and now strenuously undertake to limit global temperature increase to no more than 2.16 degrees Celsius by 2104…

“As part of our new Partnership with Africa we urge Africa to consider new ways to be less poor as part of our global efforts to reduce terrorism and the flow of refugees into G20 countries.

“We also welcome establishment of the Kleptomania Mitigation Taskforce, which will examine innovative ways to curb inappropriate use of foreign aid, to be spearheaded by Rwanda and Congo as part of the African Union’s Agenda 2063."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/the-g20-hangover.php
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7621


« Reply #269 on: September 20, 2017, 08:28:51 PM »

coming from the most successful diplomatic giant of the past century this really means a lot:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/madeleine-albright-united-nations-donald-trump-speech/2017/09/20/id/814705/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41586


« Reply #270 on: October 12, 2017, 08:54:24 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-unesco-withdrawal.html?emc=edit_na_20171012&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
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!