[galveston]

How far do you think Obama will go in supporting UN resolutions? Will he defend the US Constitution as he swore to do, or will he support resolutions that counter our Constitution?

It is a vital question that we need to keep our eyes on. We don't want to wake up some morning to discover that we are now under UN rule and our Bill of Rights has been scrapped.

One example of concern to me, as a Christian, is the call by Islamic states for a UN resolution that would prevent the defamation of religions. Sounds good, right? The problem is that the way they want it, it would be an international CRIME to say anything negative about Islam.

It would be applied against missionaries, and could concieveably be appllied to ALL teaching in ALL countries.

Of course, the religious application is only one. Third world countries would love to tell us how to spend our tax dollars.

Bush was smart enough to not ratify Kyoto, whice he knew would hamstring our economy.

Will Obama be as smart?

[BIGBOPPER]

*sigh* There is a thing called "check and balances" written into our U.S. Law. If the president (Executive Branch) tried to do something wrong, the Congress (Legislative Branch,) or the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch,) could stop him. If any of the other branches were to do the same, then the remaining two could stop them. Obama cannot, and so far, will not, do anything against the U.S. Constitution. George Bush, on the other hand, started to go against the U.S. Constitution, when he tried to define marriage as only being heterosexual. But he stopped abruptly when it was pointed out to him, that his proposal was unconstitutional.

One example of concern to me, as a Christian, is the call by Islamic states for a UN resolution that would prevent the defamation of religions. Sounds good, right? The problem is that the way they want it, it would be an international CRIME to say anything negative about Islam.

It would be applied against missionaries, and could concieveably be appllied to ALL teaching in ALL countries.

For all religions, regardless of faith being treated equal is a good idea. It will allow the Christain faith and the Muslim, and the Hindu, ETC. to be on equal ground. No religion of ANY faith should be held in higher regard than any other.
All have good points, and all have bad.
Thirld world countries, BTW cannot dictate what the U.S. can do, any more than any other country can. I refer to the thing about checks and balances above.
Please give our President a chance. He hasn't had time yet to make positive changes. Remember it took eight years of Bush to make this mess. Obama cannot perform miracles. It is going to take some time to get things straightened up.

Oh, and for the record, I did not vote for Obama, so you cannot claim me as a supporter. I do know, however, he is our president, and as a U.S. citizen, I have to allow him to lead this country.

[tomder55]

I think that there is a potential for disaster here or maybe reality will sink in. Not sure which way he will go.

One early indicator will be if the US attends Durban II . The US should boycott it .Two weeks ago, the administration set four conditions for U.S. participation in Durban II. The new version of the Durban II declaration must be: "shorter," "not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration," "not single out any one country or conflict"; "not embrace the troubling concept of "defamation of religion."

The new revised draft statement removes the cr*p about Israel being an apartheid state and deletes the terminology about" defamation of religions."

But it "Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism .. . " That declaration says Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism.Other language in the Durban I declaration violates the President's preconditions for US attendance. Most of the language is cloaked diplomatic double speak .Obama should boycott the meeting .
http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6de...TEXTDURBAN.PDF


Another potential disaster is the possibility of the Senate ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty(LOST)

LOST regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to the seabed's oil and mineral wealth.
LOST declares the sea and its bounty the "universal heritage of mankind,".It would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams that exit into the seas... including the Mississippi ,the Great Lakes ,and all tidal waters of the United States .
It gives the UN the ability to make laws about run off into our rivers under the guise that they empty into the oceans and enforce them through a tribunal .The treaty allows environmental groups to bring lawsuits to the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Germany, a panel of 21 U.N. judges .Any nation that is party to the treaty can have a seat on the tribunal and seabed authority;even ones that don't have access to the sea. The current vice president of the tribunal represents Austria, a landlocked nation .Their rulings would have the force law in the U.S. according to a reading in a 2008 Supreme Court decision by Justice John Paul Stevens.

It gives them the ability to collect royalty fees;a UN tax , for mining the ocean which will make it an overbloated and funded UN bureaucracy .

The Senate has correctly in my view resisted signing this treaty since the 1970s. But now Sen.John Kerry ,chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during a January confirmation hearing that he intends to push for ratification.
Secretary of State Evita Clinton told Kerry that his committee "will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration." Even the Navy;seeking a guarantee of safe passage through all seaways wants the treaty confirmed .