United Nations

[Lex Concord]

Yada, Yada, Yada !! I just want to know what Krylon color most closely matches UN Helmets?

Start here: Azure (color) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm guessing there is some online converter you can use to get the Pantone (and then the Krylon) color from the RGB.

Edit: Found one... http://www.netfront.fr/Services/rgb2pantone/pantone.htm?r=&g=&b=&rgb=4B92DB

 

[bigg cheese]

Just remember:

"The UN UN-Nazi'd the world." -- Idiocracy

 

[CulpeperMM]

Rio Treaty

officially Convention on Biological DiversityInternational environmental agreement approved at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Negotiations began in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program. Its goals are the conservation of the planet's biodiversity and the fair use of its resources. By the early 21st century, more than 185 governments were party to the agreement.

Rio Treaty definition of Rio Treaty in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

This was the beginning of the GLOBAL WARMING hysteria. it was created as a means of forcing world government.

Green Cross International is an environmental organisation founded by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993, building upon the work started by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.[1] Green Cross International's mission is "to help ensure a just, sustainable and secure future for all by fostering a value shift and cultivating a new sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility in humanity's relationship with nature."[2] This organisation publishes a newsletter and also came out with a publication entitled "Antarctica: the Global Warning.".[3] Thirty-one countries have established Green Cross National organisations which are part of Green Cross International.

Much of the environmental non-sense spouted out from of the media, our government, and the school system is derived from this. Mr. Gorbachev is still a communist.

Agenda 21 is a program run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was the planet's first summit to discuss global warming related issues. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.

Agenda 21 - encyclopedia article about Agenda 21.

According to the definitions of Agenda 21 property rights effect the environment, thus property rights are not fixed. Agenda 21 seeks to regulate every facet of every persons life. Much of the environmental legislation we see coming from Congress is simply the codification of the terms of the treaties into U.S. law. Where they can not pass it in congress, cities and counties have partnered with the U.N. through ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives).

The U.N. sees itself as the sovereign, and all the nations as simply "states". Many U.S. politicians (George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bill-&-Hillary Clinton, Bush the younger, B.H. Obama) see it that way as well. They are cosmopolitans, citizens of the world.

They will not invade wearing Powder Blue. They are here. In the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. In our city councils and county commissions. (I have no idea how many in our government are on board with this. 1%, 20%, 50% who knows?)

We need to elect people to Washington that will shut it down or at least withdraw us from the U.N.

 

[parsimonious]

maybe I'm late...

Someone who believes we need the UN needs to plead their case.

I read the one referencing chess pieces, I think that US diplomacy
would be more effective than a third party.

Would we lose all of our allies if we unUN'd? or maybe we would start
the rush out the door.

 

[CulpeperMM]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/the_2nd_amendment/159620-un_demands_us_gun_control.html

Of course most of you are aware that the U.N. is actively pursuing world wide gun control.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Option 4 - Stay in the UN to know what our friends and enemies are up to yet cede no authority or sovereignty over to that gaggle.

look i dont want to make waves or offend her but can someone tell me why bacon wasnt a choice on the poll?

jake

All INGO poll non-votes default to bacon. It's in the FAQ.

 

[CulpeperMM]

Option 4 - Stay in the UN to know what our friends and enemies are up to yet cede no authority or sovereignty over to that gaggle.

Nations cede sovereignty by signing the treaty to join. The U.S. empowers the U.N. by being in it.

Our military is their enforcement arm. The U.S. military hasn't been in a non U.N. sanctioned war since WWII (before the U.N. was created). Every engagement of our military is first approved by the U.N. or a U.N. created and sanctioned regional organization like SEATO or NATO.

We need out ASAP.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The US cedes no sovereignty to the UN through membership. Membership does nothing other than give us a seat at the table to listen to and shape the discussion. Sovereignty is not lost through side agreements or other treaties, although the trade court agreements come close. The Constitution reigns supreme and as such is superior to any treaties entered into, including with the UN. In any event we can extricate ourselves from treaties at any time.

The UN is a leaking sieve of information. Disbanding or removing ourselves from the UN would be an immense loss of access to information we need about both our friends and foes.

 

[MilitaryArms]

We should have been out of the UN long ago. We have NATO. We can, and do work with our allies outside of the UN.

 

[CulpeperMM]

The US cedes no sovereignty to the UN through membership. Membership does nothing other than give us a seat at the table to listen to and shape the discussion.

You have been misinformed. By joining the U.N. all members are subject to the articles of the U.N. Charter. The U.N. will use the Security Council to enforce its articles.

United Nations Charter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.N. Charter

Chapter I: Purposes And Principles

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.[1]

Chapter V: The Security Council

Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
...
Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Seems to me we surrendered much sovereignty in signing on to this Charter.

 

[CulpeperMM]

Newt Gingrich has public stated that he believes America needs to rethink our sovereignty and to integrate more closely with the U.N. and cede some additional sovereignty to the U.N.

Gingrich believes we need to sign on to the U.N. arms control non-sense (he calls it sensible gun laws). He hasn't talked about this on the campaign trail.

We need a President (and congress) who values American sovereignty above all over political considerations. ALL

 

[88GT]

You have been misinformed. By joining the U.N. all members are subject to the articles of the U.N. Charter. The U.N. will use the Security Council to enforce its articles.

United Nations Charter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.N. Charter
Seems to me we surrendered much sovereignty in signing on to this Charter.

Membership in the U.N. doesn't abdicate sovereignty. Being subject to does not mean being subordinate to. And since we are not mandated to maintain membership, we are free to remove ourselves from the organization at will. And there is nothing in what you posted that is inherently contradictory or oppositional to U.S. sovereignty. Is it possible you are confusing U.N. membership with a treaty?

 

[Titanium Man]

Get us out, and get them out!!

 

[CulpeperMM]

Membership in the U.N. doesn't abdicate sovereignty. Being subject to does not mean being subordinate to. And since we are not mandated to maintain membership, we are free to remove ourselves from the organization at will. And there is nothing in what you posted that is inherently contradictory or oppositional to U.S. sovereignty. Is it possible you are confusing U.N. membership with a treaty?

reread it carefully

 

[cburnworth]

I concur, send them packing. Drop out of the UN saving the United States billions. How can we take the UN seriously anyway with all of those 3rd world crackpots involved in it.

 

[3point5]

Why is BACON not listed as an answer...

We need out, but I need bacon more.....

 

[88GT]

reread it carefully

I read it three times before posting. My reading comprehension is pretty good, probably betterthan the average person. And I still don't see where anything you posted is an abdication or subordination of our sovereignty. We do not lose our power and authority to act in our best interest. If you want to convince me of something different, you'll have to provide additional evidence.

 

[femurphy77]

GUSTFO!

 

[CulpeperMM]

Chapter I: Purposes And Principles
Article 2

1. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.(which also means any further U.N. Treaties like Rio or Kyoto which act as amendments or addendum to the Charter in the way they operate, thus subject to Security Council Enforcement in Article 25)

Chapter V: The Security Council

Article 25 The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.


You may read this one way, however try to imagine how Alger Hiss or even Joseph Stalin would interpret it, and assume that is the way the U.N. grand planners are reading it. Our (United States) government should not be involved in this whatsoever. In the words of the late "Mr. Republican" Senator Bob Taft (OH), "The U.N. is a Trap". We can negotiate such things outside a global treaty organization that is designed to become a global government. We don't need the U.N. to negotiate with other countries.

 

[88GT]

Chapter I: Purposes And Principles
Article 2

1. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.(which also means any further U.N. Treaties like Rio or Kyoto which act as amendments or addendum to the Charter in the way they operate, thus subject to Security Council Enforcement in Article 25)

Chapter V: The Security Council

Article 25 The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.


You may read this one way, however try to imagine how Alger Hiss or even Joseph Stalin would interpret it, and assume that is the way the U.N. grand planners are reading it. Our (United States) government should not be involved in this whatsoever. In the words of the late "Mr. Republican" Senator Bob Taft (OH), "The U.N. is a Trap". We can negotiate such things outside a global treaty organization that is designed to become a global government. We don't need the U.N. to negotiate with other countries.

What I read is that membership in the U.N. comes with a lot of rules and no teeth for enforcement. What I know is that the U.N. is an impotent organization with absolutely no real power to exert its influence because each and every player chooses to put it second over their own interests. Hello, France. It's a dummy corporation at best. No real purpose but created to give things an air of legitimacy. It's existence serves no other purpose but creating a facade of cooperation so that nations that might otherwise never put themselves in a position to interact with other nations may do so at their benefit without taking the risks of walking out on the limb. And on some occasions, for the purpose of making it appear like the rest of the world is bigger than it is. Think puffer fish of international politics.

What do you think would happen if the U.S. decided not to comply? What exists on paper is not always an accurate representation of what happens in real life. The U.N. doesn't bother me.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get out. Well, yeah, actually, I am. Semper's post convinced me our membership is valuable enough to deal with the drawbacks. I would argue that the U.N. needs to cease to exist. But as long as it does, I'm all for membership on our terms*. If they don't like it, they can kick us out. Because that's really all they have in their little bag of tricks. And as things stand right now, that ain't never gonna happen as long as we're providing posh headquarters and footing a majority of the bills and other liabilities. We keep the rest of them afloat and they know it. THeir petty tyrants have far less power than they think they do.


*Our terms should include a significant reduction in funds allotted, but I'd settle for a quid pro quo benefits package if it came down to it.