Obama Poised to Betray America Through 4 United Nations Treaties (Video)

February, 5, 2012
Could Obama really be on the verge of making our worst conspiracy theory nightmares about a “new world order” come true, under the radar, while most people are focused on the primaries?
Dick Morris is sounding the alarm about four utterly heinous UN treaties that are currently under consideration by the Obama administration that would surrender our sovereignty, cede power to go to war to the UN,  enact gun control, and tell us how to raise our children, if ratified by the Senate. These are treaties that the Bush administration and even Clinton administration would never have considered, but as the most radical  administration in American history enters it’s last year, all stars are in alignment for it to happen.

Here is some additional information about the treaties under consideration:



The International Criminal Court:
In a series of articles (see here, here, and here, The New American revealed the campaign for the ICC as a colossal bait and switch scam. While proponents were selling the ICC as the institution that would haul the Hitlers and Stalins of the world before the bar of justice, what they were actually building is a global judicial monster that violates all the major principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and accountability.
In spite of their incessant prattling about dedication to  “transparency,” the globalists have been obdurately opaque about key features of the ICC, such as:

No right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers;
No right to habeas corpus;
No right to bail;
No right to a speedy trial;
No protection against indefinite pre-trial detention;
No protection against being transported to foreign lands

America’s top constitutional champions have rightly denounced the ICC. As we reported in 1998:
Dr. Charles Rice, professor of law at Notre Dame University, has termed the ICC “a monster,” both in concept and reality, noting that it effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence and cancels the 4th of July.” “In our system,” Professor Rice explains, “law is supposed to be a rule of reason which, in a sense, controls the state and compels the state to operate under the law.” But the super-jurisdictional ICC, he points out, has no legitimate basis for its claimed authority, no protections against abuses, no accountability, and virtually no limits to its jurisdiction. “What are the limits on the ICC?” he asks, and then answers, “There are none. It’s insane!”
As news of this ICC criminal insanity became more widely known, the U.S. Congress was deluged with letters, e-mails, faxes, phone calls, and petitions opposing it. It was obvious that the Senate would not ratify the Rome Statute. The Clinton administration, which, only months previously had been so confident of ratification, did not even send the treaty to the Senate.

The Law of the Sea Treaty:

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Law of the Sea: UNCLOS—sometimes called the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (or LOST)—established a comprehensive legal regime for navigation and international management of oceanic resources, including the deep seabed.
President Reagan Refused to Sign: President Ronald Reagan announced that he would not sign UNCLOS shortly after it was adopted in 1982. Reagan stated several objections to it, most of which dealt with its provisions on deep seabed mining. Reagan did, however, support the navigational provisions of UNCLOS, which reflected the customary international law of the sea.
The U.S. Has Much to Lose …
Another Unaccountable International Bureaucracy: UNCLOS establishes the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a new U.N.-style bureaucracy located in Kingston, Jamaica. As only one of more than 160 countries in the ISA, the U.S. would have limited authority over its decisions regarding the deep seabed. Just like the U.N. General Assembly, proceedings at the ISA would be dominated by anti-U.S. interests.
Redistribution of U.S. Wealth to the “Developing World”: The U.S. currently enjoys full sovereignty over its entire continental shelf. It can claim all its mineral resources (e.g., oil and gas) and can collect royalty revenue from oil and gas companies for exploitation. If the U.S. joined UNCLOS, Article 82 would require the U.S. to transfer a significant portion of any such royalties to the ISA for “redistribution” to the so-called developing world, including corrupt and despotic regimes.
Mandatory Dispute Resolution: Under Part XV, the U.S. would be required to engage in mandatory dispute resolution for any claim brought against it by another member of UNCLOS. This may open the U.S. to any number of specious allegations brought by opportunistic nations, including allegations of environmental degradation or polluting the ocean environment with carbon emissions or even from land-based sources.
U.S. Economic Interests at Risk: UNCLOS claims the deep seabed resources of the oceans as “the common heritage of mankind” and forbids mining unless permission is first received by the ISA, which, of course, takes into account the interests of “developing states” regarding the exploitation of those resources. UNCLOS encourages technology transfers from advanced mining companies to support the mining activities by developing states, which is likely to discourage U.S. companies from participating in such activities.
The Convention Was Not “Fixed” in 1994: During the early 1990s the deep seabed mining provisions of UNCLOS were renegotiated in the “1994 Agreement.” This addendum to the convention was signed by the Clinton Administration in July 1994. While the 1994 Agreement improved many provisions of the convention, it did not secure “veto” power for the U.S. over the decisions of the ISA.
Small Arms Treaty:
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC):
The UNCRC is an international treaty focused on promoting the rights of children and seeking to give children priority in the implementation of governmental measures. The Convention claims to offer a road map that will guide government officials in the improvement of laws and policies, by defining which rights the government should give to children.

A VEILED THREAT
Since its introduction in 1989, the Convention has been ratified by every nation in the world except for the United States and Somalia. The CRC was signed by President Clinton in 1995, but early opposition in the Senate persuaded Clinton not to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
The Senators who opposed the CRC in 1995 believed that the Convention marked a significant departure from the American concept of the relationship between state and child, and was incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children.
These concerns stem from the CRC’s repeated emphasis on two principles that should guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child” and the child’s “evolving capacities.” These two principles are the “umbrella principles underlining the exercise of all the rights in the Convention.”

The following sections explain why these two principles will, if implemented, jeopardize the vital role of parents within the American family.

WHAT IS REALLY “BEST FOR THE CHILD”?
The “Best Interests of the Child”
Article 3 of the CRC states that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Thus, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.
The problem for families occurs when this principle surfaces as a guiding principle for parents. Article 18(1) of the CRC states that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

A DEPARTURE FROM AMERICAN LAW
But the Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a sharp break from American law. In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the ‘best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.”
In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made “solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests,” without regard to the wishes of the parent.
The Court’s decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, “United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children,” ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation.
Thus, except in cases where a parent has been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision.
The Convention, in contrast, supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.
People need to start raising a ruckus over this or as Dick Morris noted, the United States may not be able to survive another ten months of this regime.