Friday, May 20, 2011


I have a new initiative for the United Nations. I wonder if I can get any other countries to sign onto it. It's called "Responsibility To Be Sovereign." RTBS. Each sovereign nation would be allowed to survive based on its own laws and borders. The sovereign nation of the United States of America would be allowed to use its own resources and power to protect itself from illegal invasions (see mexican illegals), and would not be forced by the United Nations to undermine its own natural alliances with other sovereign nations. Seems like a good idea to me....but tell that to the UN.

You see, the United Nations evidently sucked us into some crazy agreement called "Responsibility to Protect" some time ago. 2005, to be exact. The United States actually signed onto this idiocy. I'd be willing to bet most Americans have not heard of this or has a clue what that means. It sounds so nice, doesn't it? Just like all global leftist ideas, branding is what matters. Name something using a sweet euphemism for do-good mentality, and the world applauds and steps right into the knee-deep do-do.

History of the United Nations R2P / Responsiblity to Protect agreement

Basic Principles
R2P Basic Principles

The principles and elements of The Responsibility to Protect doctrine were elaborated in the 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). Its basic principles are two-fold:

  1. Inherent in the concept of sovereignty is a state's responsibility to protect its populations; and
  2. If a population is suffering serious harm, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the responsibility to protect those people lies in the international community."
1) Right Authority - The most appropriate body to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes is the United Nations Security Council. However, should the Council reject a proposal or fail to take up a situation within a reasonable amount of time, alternatives are the following:

A. the General Assembly can consider the matter during an Emergency Special Session under the "Uniting for Peace" procedure; and

B. Regional or sub-regional organizations can act within their geographic jurisdiction, subject to their seeking subsequent authorization from the Security Council.

Of course, where anti-American sovereignty reigns, there sits our best friend, George Soros. KeyWiki on Soros

The Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.[30]

From WND:

The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – which is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.
According to the principle, any state's sovereignty can be overrun, including with the use of military force, if the international community decides it must act to halt what it determines to be genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.

More from WND:

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."
In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
Excuse me? Say what? As usual, the oxymoronic illogic of Soros shows he has no understanding whatsoever of American government. In one fell swoop, he declares "sovereignty belongs to the people," and then creates a doctrine that takes our representative government completely out of the picture and hands it over to the UN. (Soros is crazy like a fox and dangerous as a copperhead snake) The American people had no opportunity to delegate on the issue of Libya. Does the U.S. Congress have any say about taking our military into war or conflicts in the world after this??? Evidently not any longer. The UN now has the authority to take our soldiers into conflict all over the world without the American voters' consent. Mind you, this thing was signed onto by the U.S. during the Bush tenure. Now our dear leader, the Big Zero, has acted on the R2P Doctrine with the UN attack on Libya in March. While the American public is sitting here scratching our collective heads and asking why on Libya, some of our congressional representatives are trying their darndest to get the President to go to Congress to address the "War Powers Act" in order to justify this action. So far the Big Zero has ignored the request.

Believe me, I am among the clueless. I had no idea this agreement existed or that we, the U.S. had signed onto it before the subject hit the news on Libya. I blame this on mainstream media who made no attempt of alerting the American public on just how bad this is. I imagine it was on the back pages of some newspaper somewhere, but it certainly didn't make the headlines or filter down to the majority of Americans. Where are the American people on this? Sitting there listening to John Lennon's anthem "Imagine?" Driving your "smart car?" Handing over your property to the latest "greenway" project? Volunteering for the now gay military? Nope? Just sitting there?

The End of United States Sovereignty

Therefore the U.S. Responsibility to Protect organization re-committed itself to its goals. The mission of Responsibility to Protect is

  • To convince the American people and its leaders to embrace the norm of the responsibility to protect as a domestic and foreign policy priority.
  • To convince our political leadership that the US must join the International Criminal Court.
  • To convince our political leadership to empower the UN and the ICC with a legitimate and effective deterrent and enforcement mechanism – an International Marshals Service – a standing international police force to arrest atrocity crimes indictees.
The Big Zero has done more to take down the country than all previous presidents combined: quadrupling the debt, calling Americans terrorists, appointing socialists to the Supreme Court, refusing to allow our own exploration for energy, allowing Interpol carte blanche within the U.S., bailing out Egypt, throwing away our money to support global banks, supporting QE2 - creating inflation, implementing R2P doctrine - turning over our military to the UN.

I wonder if the American people can drum up the responsibility to protect ourselves from this enemy in the White House. Just wondering.


  1. I guess we have to give the liberals their due. they have devised an impeccable strategy. They attack us from the top, from the bottom and from the sides all at the same time. We find ourselves drowning in a sea of issues, every single one of which are important. They keep us off balance. Maybe we all need to make more use of organizations like the Tea Parties where each individual is assigned an issue to work against. That way we know that there is someone responding to all these issues. The other problem is that there is always a shortage of money to fund an adequate campaign against all the issues.
    I wish I had something more positive to offer, Cheryl, but that's all I have.
    Keep swinging, kid. I'll do the same.


  2. Thinking about what you are saying, Jim...
    Liberals are Kumbaya types. They love to commiserate, join hands, and complain about their collective miseries while blaming others. I guess that makes them feel better somehow. I think conservatives are all about empowering the individual, not forming unions of collective power. That is my instant psychology answer to how the liberals managed to get their voices heard. Mobs vs. individuals.
    Now the Tea Parties are learning to form some sort of alliances, but still based on individual rights...not collective rights. In a way, it is a conundrum...making a collective voice based on individual rights. Conservatives are not usually mob joining folks...they are busy making the most of their individual lives, now being ripped down by mob joiners.
    On the money situation, it is hard to go up against the likes of Soros, Gore, GE, Michael Moore, the Tides Foundation, the Rockefellers. Who has that kind of money?
    Not at all sure where this fight will take us going forward...but glad you are in there pitching!!