Maine Republican Party Platform

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I hate politics, but figured I'd do the board a service and post this interesting platform made the Tea Party inspired Main Republicans.
  
  http://www.mainegop.com/PlatformMission.aspx
  
  
  I find this one interesting:

  . Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty. Specifically
  i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.
  ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty
  iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.

  UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, the U.S. and Somalia are the only states not a member-great company to have.
  The Law of the Sea establishes international zones that would actually benefit the U.S., mainly our Proliferation Security Initiative. Even our military is in favor of passage of LOS.
  There is an agreement to ban guns worldwide?
  
  Also, this:

  3. National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.

  If I remember right, all treaties have a clause where states can withdraw, and all treaties must be approved by the Senate. Are they against all international treaties, or just some? It is unclear.
  
  
  I found it interesting.
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I hate politics, but figured I'd do the board a service and post this interesting platform made the Tea Party inspired Main Republicans.
  
  http://www.mainegop.com/PlatformMission.aspx
  
  
  I find this one interesting:

  . Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty. Specifically
  i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.
  ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty
  iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.

  UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, the U.S. and Somalia are the only states not a member-great company to have.

  Good for the US and Somalia- the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child is tyrranical and a very bad idea. Basically an international government panel would have the authority and ability to override any parents' disciplining of or religious teaching to their children. Children would have the right to reproductive information and services (including abortion) without parents' knowledge and consent.
  
  http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}
  
  So it transfers the rightful authority from parents to raise their children as they see fit to the government (so of course that makes it a good idea for liberals). Remember Hillary's "It Takes a Village"?
  

  Also, this:

  3. National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.

  If I remember right, all treaties have a clause where states can withdraw, and all treaties must be approved by the Senate. Are they against all international treaties, or just some? It is unclear.
  
  I found it interesting.

  Umm, I don't know, maybe just "any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such (national sovereignty) by international treaty."
  So no, that doesn't sound like all international treaties to me.
  
  I don't know enough about the Law of the Sea Treaty to comment.
• cbus4life

  Lol @ rejecting the UN treaty on rights of the child.
• jhay78

  

  cbus4life wrote: Lol @ rejecting the UN treaty on rights of the child.

  So you're saying it's a good idea? Are we a society of child-beating, child-neglecting parents who need an international panel to tell us how to raise our kids?
  Who cares if we're the only nation to reject it (along with Somalia). We should be writing laws telling the UN what to do.
• majorspark

  

  cbus4life wrote: Lol @ rejecting the UN treaty on rights of the child.

  LOL @ the UN. The world's largest collection of assclowns.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I hate politics, but figured I'd do the board a service and post this interesting platform made the Tea Party inspired Main Republicans.

  You are living in the wrong city.
  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: There is an agreement to ban guns worldwide?

  They are not pointing to a specific treaty or agreement. Just one that would contain language allowing an internatianl law to trump our own concerning bearing arms.
• cbus4life

  jhay78 wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: Lol @ rejecting the UN treaty on rights of the child.

  So you're saying it's a good idea? Are we a society of child-beating, child-neglecting parents who need an international panel to tell us how to raise our kids?
  Who cares if we're the only nation to reject it (along with Somalia). We should be writing laws telling the UN what to do.

  No, we're not. And i don't believe that this treaty/convention is all that invasive, and haven't seen anything yet to indicate that it will be. Where is this international panel telling you how to raise your kids? I don't see it here.
  
  I don't agree with the UN in a lot of cases, but this one where i like the governance and oversight.
  
  And, p.s, Somalia has said they will shortly sign the treaty.
• Little Danny

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I hate politics, but figured I'd do the board a service and post this interesting platform made the Tea Party inspired Main Republicans.
  
  http://www.mainegop.com/PlatformMission.aspx
  
  
  I find this one interesting:

  . Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty. Specifically
  i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.
  ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty
  iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.

  UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, the U.S. and Somalia are the only states not a member-great company to have.
  The Law of the Sea establishes international zones that would actually benefit the U.S., mainly our Proliferation Security Initiative. Even our military is in favor of passage of LOS.
  There is an agreement to ban guns worldwide?
  
  Also, this:

  3. National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.

  If I remember right, all treaties have a clause where states can withdraw, and all treaties must be approved by the Senate. Are they against all international treaties, or just some? It is unclear.
  
  
  I found it interesting.

  Dude, the majority of your posts are on the political forum. You also reprented on the old site political forums as well. This would be like centralbucksfan saying he hates talking about OSU.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Note, I love policy, foreign policy and the nuts and bolts of things and can't stand politics, election cycles and the stuff the 24 hour networks focus on.
  
  LOS:
  http://www.state.gov/g/oes/ocns/opa/convention/
  

  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee responded by holding hearings on September 27, 2007 and October 3, 2007. At the first hearing, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified in strong support of the Convention. At the second hearing, representatives of the oil and gas, shipping, and telecommunications industries voiced support for the Convention. Other proponents who testified were Prof. Bernard H. Oxman and Adm. Vernon Clark, U.S. Navy (Ret.). The Committee forwarded the Convention to the full Senate in late 2007 by a vote of 17-4, but the Senate did not consider it in the 110th Congress.

  Relating to the Proliferation Security Initiative:

  In a letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent to the
  Senate in 2007, the Joint Chiefs argued for ratification, explaining that the convention “codifies
  navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility
  of our armed forces.”37 The letter said that the Convention supports the efforts of the Proliferation
  Security Initiative. Senior military officials have also publicly said that not being a party hinders
  efforts to recruit new PSI participants.38 In his testimony before a Senate Armed Services
  Committee in April 2008, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Patrick Walsh said, “Our
  current non-party status constrains our efforts to develop enduring maritime partnerships. It
  inhibits us in our efforts to expand the Proliferation Security Initiative.”

  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34327.pdf
• majorspark

  

  cbus4life wrote: No, we're not. And i don't believe that this treaty/convention is all that invasive, and haven't seen anything yet to indicate that it will be. Where is this international panel telling you how to raise your kids? I don't see it here.
  
  I don't agree with the UN in a lot of cases, but this one where i like the governance and oversight.
  
  And, p.s, Somalia has said they will shortly sign the treaty.

  We don't need some stupid international treaty to tell us how to justly and morally treat our children.
  
  Maybe we should ask some of the children that have been raped by UN peacekeepers what they think about the UN protecting their "rights" as children.
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1538476/UN-staff-accused-of-raping-children-in-Sudan.html
• QuakerOats

  cbus4life wrote:
  I don't agree with the UN in a lot of cases, but this one where i like the governance and oversight.
  

  Screw the UN and screw governance and oversight .... I have had my fill of it from the left.
• I Wear Pants

  cbus4life wrote: Lol @ rejecting the UN treaty on rights of the child.

• cbus4life

  Fair enough, guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  
  Just don't see, in this convention/treaty, how we would be losing or giving away any sovereignty or the like.
  
  We already have a great child rights record and are doing just fine, but i've seen numerous instances where this convention has led to increased rights/protections in other countries, and i feel as though signing on to it would generate solid publicity, a renewed sense of purpose, etc., in working to improve the condition of children throughout the world.
  
  The treaty has led countries to make significant change/improvement in numerous areas where child abuse and the like was concerned.
  
  I don't think we're losing anything by signing it, and the only gain is the fact that the world's greatest nation is taking another step to help improve the lives of children throughout the world.
  
  Nothing is perfect, as far as the UN is concerned, but this is one that i really don't have any problems with.
  
  But, i do understand where you guys are coming from.
  
  But, are you really suprised that i am OK with this?
• jhay78

  

  A lengthy but worthwhile read, for a little perspective:
  
  http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B2B53865E-A8C1-4FE6-AF67-08789FBE3C0A%7D
  
  Why on earth would we want to hand any authority over to the UN regarding anything?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  jhay78 wrote: A lengthy but worthwhile read, for a little perspective:
  
  http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B2B53865E-A8C1-4FE6-AF67-08789FBE3C0A%7D
  
  Why on earth would we want to hand any authority over to the UN regarding anything?

  Because everybody else is doing it? lol
  
  (that's not an endorsement from me, btw)
• Mr. 300

  

  I lol'd out loud at Ptown hating politics.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Mr. 300 wrote: I lol'd out loud at Ptown hating politics.

  Glad I entertain lol.
• cbus4life

  jhay78 wrote: A lengthy but worthwhile read, for a little perspective:
  
  http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B2B53865E-A8C1-4FE6-AF67-08789FBE3C0A%7D
  
  Why on earth would we want to hand any authority over to the UN regarding anything?

  Thanks for read!
  
  I still contend that we aren't just handing over authority to the UN outright or anything close to that, like some seem to be implying.