Obama’s global goals: dangers to our society

Download 18.42 Kb.
Size18.42 Kb.

Speech by Cathie Adams, Eagle Forum’s National & State Sovereignty Chairman,

Given at Eagle Council, St. Louis, MO, 9/10/10
I have no doubt that voters will send President Barak Hussein Obama a raging message on November 2nd: stop spending us into bankruptcy! His first two years of “stimulus” spending have cost taxpayers more than six years of the Iraq War cost,1 yet the jobless rate is still 9.6%. And his national security record is just as abominable.
Do you remember in July 2008 when candidate Obama told about 200,000 fans in Berlin, Germany, that he was a “fellow citizen of the world” and promised to “unite Christians, Muslims and Jews” in a “world without nuclear weapons?” Too many Americans did not understand what those words meant until after he was elected, then apologized for American exceptionalism and bowed submissively before foreign leaders. Tragically China, Iran and Russia fully understood Obama’s words and were emboldened by them.
The Russians, being masters at the game of chess, are playing to capture the “king,” the world’s lone superpower, the U.S.A. The Russians already have treaties with Iran and China, and in April, Obama signed a New START bilateral arms control treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The New START treaty is good for Russia, but not for the U.S. And a treaty that is good for Russia is also good for China, Iran and other rogue nations to whom Russia sells it weapons and technologies.
The Chinese Communists are waging their own kind of war, an economic war on the dollar and the euro by systematically replacing them with its currency called the renminbi. The progress I observed from my first trip to China in 1984 and my second in 1995 was dramatic, brought about by joint ventures with foreign businesses. But Americans must consider what the Chi-Coms are doing with their new-found wealth. While China capitalizes on its ten-fold per capita increase in its gross domestic product and its 21-fold purchasing power parity to increase its military expenditures, the U.S. on the other hand has slowed, frozen or reversed the development of nuclear weapons, fighter planes, surface combatants, submarines, space surveillance, anti-submarine warfare capacity, carrier battle groups and fleet missile defenses.2 Adding to American concerns about China is that in 2001 the Russians and Chinese signed a treaty that presents a strategic shift in Eurasia.
The Russians also have signed a full military treaty with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meaning that they will come to one another’s defense if attacked. Just last month in direct response to U.S. military threats against Iran, military exercises were organized by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Iran launched its own war games one week earlier.3
The New START treaty allows Russia to reach parity with new and modern weapons, while the U.S. is locked into reducing our nuclear arsenal that has not been tested since 1992. The treaty gives up verification, on-site inspections and monitoring of production. Furthermore, Senator DeMint says that, “The treaty dampens the U.S. ability to defend against missile attacks and makes America and her allies vulnerable to rogue nations while receiving nothing for our concessions.”4 Have Americans forgotten that it was President Reagan’s proposed missile defense system that won the Cold War without firing a shot? We must remain vigilant to prevent the New START treaty from being rammed through the Senate during a lame duck session this November.5
President Obama is also cowering before the feminists. On June 9, the House International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing to discuss a ten-year-old UN Security Council Resolution that calls for the ratification of a 30-year-old treaty that was signed by former President Jimmy Carter called the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the First Lady when I observed her during the 1995 UN Women’s Conference in Beijing, China. After that conference, 30 federal agencies were forced to implement its pro-abortion feminist agenda, even though American women already enjoy the same freedoms and equality with men.
The treaty allows 21 feminist academics from third world countries like Bangladesh, Cuba, Algeria, Thailand and Ghana to reinterpret hard-fought political decisions made by sovereign states. For example, it forced Greece and Indonesia to root out sex differences in housework, and demanded sex parity on private corporate boards in Norway. The CEDAW committee directed China to legalize prostitution even though the treaty condemns prostitution, and it took Slovenia to task because only 30% of their children were in state-sponsored day care. It has been used to liberalize abortion laws in 93 countries.6
Every nation in the world except the U.S. and Somalia have ratified to another radical feminist treaty: the 1989 UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child. As the UN masquerades as global nanny, it forces traditional families to abandon their roles and responsibilities to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The treaty directs that education include such things as “the principles enshrined in the Charter of the UN,” and mandates a national daycare system that Americans have repeatedly rejected. Thirty-one Republican Senators are co-sponsoring a resolution to oppose this treaty and we need 34 members in order to stop ratification by the U.S. Senate.
The UN can no more be a global nanny, than it can part the seas, but that is virtually what the Law of the Sea Treaty, LOST, claims the power to do. It grants the UN the authority to impose international taxes, disguised as fees and royalties as it decides all matters relating to two-thirds of the earth’s surface--the oceans and everything in them.
President Ronald Reagan rejected this 202-page treaty in 1982, then President George W. Bush tried to revive it claiming that it had been “fixed,” but there is no way to “fix” a treaty unilaterally.
President Obama has found a new way to implement the LOST treaty within our borders without approval by the U.S. Senate. A 27-member “National Ocean Council” was created in July by Executive Order that is essentially a Clean Water Act on the model of the Clean Air Act. This panel is empowered to implement “coastal and marine spatial plans” and to ensure that all executive agencies, departments and offices abide by their determinations. The National Ocean Council’s co-chairmen speak volumes about the new body. Co-chairman John Holdren is the science czar notorious for his support of eugenics, mass sterilization and forced abortions. Co-chairman Nancy Sutley who was Van Jones’ boss, the communist green jobs czar, and is the White House Council on Environmental Quality.7
The final treaty we’ll discuss today is the International Criminal Court. The ICC was preceded by a World Court that tries governments, but the UN wanted a court to try individuals, thus the ICC was created in 1998. This court can rob Americans of our Bill of Rights protections of a grand-jury indictment, protection against double jeopardy and a trial by jury.
The ICC was pushed through the UN by the World Federalist Society. The Democratic World Federalists is a society that advocates for a democratic federal system of world government believing that world government will end war and crimes against humanity through the development of enforceable world law.
The treaty has been signed and unsigned; signed by President Bill Clinton, then rescinded by President George W. Bush in 2002. What will Obama do? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in August 2009 during a visit to Kenya, told an audience that it was “a great regret” that the U.S. has not joined the ICC.
The ICC has operated for eight years without securing a single conviction. Even so, it met this summer in Kampala, Uganda, to extend the court’s jurisdiction to include a new crime of “aggression” adding to the existing crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
“Aggression” has not been defined. Could it mean that the UN Security Council’s five permanent members, the U.S., the U.K. France, Russia and China, must approve engagement in a conflict before a sovereign nation can act? How would that have worked when President Kennedy blockaded Cuba in 1962 or President Reagan intervened in Central America and Grenada in the 1980s or President Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 or President Bush invaded Iraq in 2003? Do you think a panel of 15 judges in the Hague can decide which officials should be punished and with what degree of severity?
The bottom line is that the ICC ratifies a new expectation that military policy can be settled by lawyers! And its supporters promise that it is a middle way between leaving decisions to sovereign states and establishing a world government to enforce the will of the global majority. In their “utopia,” the world would have “peace through law,” rather than “peace through strength.”8
It is un-American to grant power to global bureaucrats to supersede our state and federal laws. Americans do not believe that individual rights originate with the government or the UN or kings or rulers or even society. Our Judeo-Christian worldview teaches that our right to life, liberty and property come to each of us from our Creator and may not be impaired without due process of law, and that the prime purpose of government is to guarantee those rights.
Our Creator even prescribes a healing balm for all nations so that we can enjoy His blessings. He says that if His people humble ourselves and pray and seek His face and turn from our wicked ways, then, He will hear from heaven and will forgive our sins and will heal our land. Let us choose Him.

1 “Little-known fact: Obama’s failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war,” by Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner, August 23, 2010

2 “On A Collision Course” by Mark Halprin, The Schwarz Report, August 2010.

3 “Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats” by Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3056

4 “The Treaty is MAD” by Senator Jim DeMint, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243568/treaty-mad-jim-demint

5 “New START Treaty Vote Predicted in Lame Duck Session” by Brian Darling, Heritage Fdn., August 30, 2010

6 “This Is No Time to Go Wobbly” by Austin Ruse, Weekly Standard, April 27, 2009

7 “And now: The Stealth Obama ocean grab” by Michelle Malkin, August 20, 2010

8 “Aggression Outlawed! Magical thinking at the International Criminal Court” by Jeremy Rabkin, The Weekly Standard August 23, 2010

Download 18.42 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2022
send message

    Main page