Obama To Give UN Control Of Our Water, Hoover Dam could be on the list? Barack Obama’s Executive Order # 13547 in support of the global Law of the Sea Treaty (L.O.S.T.) seeks to take control of our water in any form of precipitation, from sky to ocean! Total water control will give the American president and his global cohorts total control of all U.S. citizens if this initiative is not stopped by still-free citizens. Because the Water World enthusiasts are seeking to protect the earth’s water from contamination, they are jiggering U.S. water laws to conform to Obama’s Council on Interagency Ocean Policy to make sure no contamination happens.
West of the Mississippi because Chapter 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment is demanding that a staggering 50% of all U.S. land mass be blocked from any type of productive usage. This literally would be putting our Western States under United Nations domination by prohibiting any mining, drilling, harvesting of timber, or construction of any buildings made by humans. Not only that; all of our large hoofed, ungulate animals, meaning domestic livestock, are being deemed unsustainable! Warning: this action is being fast-tracked so that the government can “sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands,” under the definition of the UN Sustainable Development program-Bulletin Release No. 0191.12. This is the odious Agenda 21, pure and simple. Renamed because of its bad press, Agenda 21 wants Americans off their lands, off of their private property, and into government-controlled cluster housing near designated urban areas, controlled by on/off mechanical arms reading your GPS location to determine if you can enter an interstate or not.
If you are too far from your designated interstate point of entry, the government’s mechanical arms will deny you access to travel on American highways. To oppose what they want to do, you have to OPPOSE the following: Restore the flow of waters into natural channels and flood plains by removing, replacing or modifying water control structures; Restore lands and habitat to pre-disturbance conditions by removing debris and sediment conditions following natural or human caused events; Restore, rehabilitate or stabilize lands occupied by non-National Forest System roads and trails to a more natural condition.
You also need to oppose any attempts to remove hoofed animals from America!
According to Reuters, The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey has determined that the needs of developing countries are not being met, and new taxes will help fight dilemmas like “climate change” and the “record of broken promises” by donor countries.
Though the United Nations has no authority to enforce global taxes at the current time, its propositions hold sway and are not unlike schemes proposed by American politicians.
(Related: Biden to Crowd: ‘We Want…A Global Minimum Tax)
“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change… such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.”
CNS News summarizes a few of the proposed changes:
Carbon Tax: A tax of $25 a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted in developed countries…The money could be collected by national authorities, but be earmarked for international cooperation. CO2 is the “greenhouse gas” blamed most often for climate change.
– Currency Transaction Tax: A tax of 0.005 percent on all trading in four major currencies – the U.S. dollar, the euro, the yen and pound sterling – would yield around $40 billion a year for international initiatives. The decades-old idea of levying a small charge on financial transactions is sometimes called a “Robin Hood tax” since it supposedly taxes rich nations to benefit poor ones.
The European Union’s executive Commission has proposed the introduction of such a tax – 0.1 percent for shares and bonds and 0.01 percent for derivatives – in the 27-member union with effect from January 1, 2014, an initiative expected to raise just over $70 billion a year. The WESS says a portion of that could be earmarked for international cooperation.
– SDRs: Allocation of International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) could yield $100 billion a year to purchase long-term assets that could then be used for development finance. Set up in the 1960s, SDRs are used by governments and some international institutions. It is not itself a currency, but its value is based on a basket of the dollar, euro, pound sterling and yen. Some countries, including Russia, China and Brazil, have been pushing the idea of SDRs replacing the greenback as the world’s reserve currency.
– Billionaire’s Tax: A tax of around one percent on individual wealth holdings of $1 billion or more, “with the revenue destined to finance internationally agreed global development purposes.” The WESS says this mechanism, which it estimates could raise $50 billion a year.
Political will, both to tap sources as well as to ensure allocation of revenues for development,” said Vos. However, conservative organizations (and those that value national sovereignty), worry about hundreds of billions of dollars more being allocated to the United Nations. The taxing authority would be unaccountable to a sovereign authority, and Phyllis Schlafly, president of the conservative Eagle Forum, argues that the day the United Nations tries to impose a global tax should be the day the country pulls out of the U.N.
After all, we would essentially be paying the institution to tax us.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), another American sovereignty-threatening treaty, was sent to President Obama and he signed it on July 30, 2009. The American public cannot afford for this treaty to pass and allow the United Nations to implement more regulation that will have devastating effects on every American “person, organization, or private enterprise.” Worse yet, people with disabilities deserve better! Addressing disabilities issues through an international bureaucracy undermines our ability to empower families and communities to serve disabled people’s needs.
These new regulations are so complex that every American citizen will be impacted by the far-reaching consequences.
The CRPD Treaty will:
· Exceed the bounds of the Americans with Disabilities Act and eliminate any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law.
· Demand that all American law on this subject conform to UN standards.
· Force “every person, organization, or private enterprise” to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. This imposes impossible burdens and expenses onto private citizens, as they can be held in violation of the treaty if their private property is not fully accessible to persons with disabilities, even if they do not know any persons with disabilities.
Give the UN the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the United States’ budgets to assess compliance with such treaties. The CRPD was signed by President Obama on July 30, 2009. Since it has been sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification by President Obama, the U.S. Senate could vote to ratify this treaty at any time.
CRPD also includes numerous provisions drafted by the United Nations which would concern many U.S. citizens. Like the CRC and CEDAW, if ratified, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would become the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI, would trump state laws, and would be used as binding precedent by state and federal judges. Since it is a treaty, the U.S. Constitution requires that it must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. senators present at the time of the vote.
Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.
Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.
Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. Also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church. Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs.
Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.
This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.
Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.
The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parent“. No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
Sources: rob vos, reuters, cns news, Suzanne eovaldi