Frank Gaffney: Will United States Sovereignty Be Lost?

[AtlasShruggery]

Is the Heritage Foundation still a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon Mobil?

[sridhar20008]

U R CHINES

[gnmcgann]

I think its a pity that those we trust to represen us are failing their jobs very badly think we need a new president , Sernate and congress of just ordinary people with commonsense

[getplaning]

Gaffney reveals the outrage from the outer edges of the right for what it really is: anti-cooperative isolationism that is both unfounded in fact and counter to American interests. This treaty has solid support, transcending political parties and interests. There are already 155 countries that are party to the treaty. If you can't get that through, what kind of treaty can you get through the Senate?

[AcePilot101]

We can let the USA rule the world or give it to the Russians and/or the Chinese.

Feel better now?

[XxTrailofDeadxX]

Or put it in the hands of no one and everyone.

[savagesteve13]

Actually, the treaty is a way for the USA to maintain a lock on the world, as we have always assumed that dominance over the seas was a prize earned by superpower status.

The Heritage Foundation is made up of Stalinist communists pretending to be conservatives. Their fear parallels that of the Soviet Union's. They belive enemies are everywhere and a permanent cold war military stance and a police state makes us secure.

[canegracehasettevite]

Ma mangi pane e succo di volpe per colazione?

Sveglia!!!!!! Non ci crede nessuno.

[CaliforniaTwist]

Hahaha, International Organization impose their will on the United States =)))

That's what they are meant to do, idiot. Controlling countries' freedom to secure peace and order. And you have to obey, asshole! It's not losing sovereignity, it's being a civilized nation. Sometimes you have to limit your freedom to secure something more important.

[RollinGolden]

UH yea... a dictator or king could secure order too... the point is that this body thats trying to exert influence on US citizens does not represent them.

[CaliforniaTwist]

americans, you're awesome=)

That's right! He doesn't. Just as IAEA doesn't represent Iran, for example. Or as UN didn't represent Yugoslavia. International Organizations are meant to constrain governments, not to lobby their interests.

It's funny that Americans use these organizations to influence other countries and can't imagine that they work the other way, too)

[EpicurusThirteen]

I myself am not a US citizen, but I can express concern over the treaty. If all nations on earth were to truly adhere to the terms of a highly restrictive treaty such as this one, then great. The reality is that a "progressive" nation can hamstring itself by agreeing to conditions which its opponents will not also obey.

[Xareal]

The imposing of one's will upon another be it an individual upon an individual or a group upon a group is not civilization. Civilization is a group deciding on its own to adhere to certain laws and regulations. A system such as the one proposed cuts into people's freedoms, and freedom should NEVER be the cost of something that's supposedly for the common good. Anyone who thinks that's the case is truly unaware of all of the options before them.

[CaliforniaTwist]

=) That's truly amazing)

Freedom SHOULD be the cost of many things. For example, the freedom og Germany in 1940s shouldn't have been limited, right? The treaties against distribution of nuclear weapons should not exist? It's limiting FREEDOM, right? You guys are so obsessed with it) No other value in the US, that's sad=/ In civilized world nations decide together, limiting each other with treaties and international organizations that secure peace.

[Xareal]

Freedom of people is different than the freedom of a country, the freedoms of COUNTRIES need to be limited to ensure that the basic human rights of the People in them and around them are not tread upon, hence the limiting of those countries. I do not believe in people not being represented while being ordered to adhere to something and having no say in its process- that's what this plan does.

[Xareal]

With no representation it is practically the same as subjugation, which only breeds resentment-not equality. As for your view that Americans are ignorant, you show your own ignorance in saying such things. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Your message will be lost on people if you persist in insulting others. Effective debate and discussion involves a civil tone. Perhaps you should invest in one instead of resorting to insults and assumptions.

[Xareal]

The only way that a plan like this would have my approval is if laws were made and done on a level similar to that done in the U.S where there are Federal Laws and State Laws. As in, there are World Laws and then Country Laws. Certain Laws that effect the World would limit countries, but would leave more personal matters to those countries.

[Xareal]

Example 1: Iran decrees intent to manufacture and use Nuclear Weapons, World Law prohibits it.

Example 2: Texas decides that people in its state can marry members of the same sex. This is hardly a World Law matter as it does not put other countries in danger, so World Law would not be able to rule on this.

[CaliforniaTwist]

And the inability of the US to get that unlimited freedom is not great causes Vietnam, Iraq, Islamic terrorism etc. And Epicurus, that's the US who are imposing their will on other nations on a regular basis) Like UK, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Iran and others.