Below is the resolution before the U.S. Senate to defend the Vatican's special diplomatic status at the United Nations. A similar resolution H.CON.RES.253.IH is before the House of Representatives.
Whereas the Holy See is the governing authority of the sovereign State of Vatican City;
Whereas the Holy See has an internationally recognized legal personality, which allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives;
Whereas the diplomatic history of the Holy See began over 1,600 years ago, during the 4th century A.D., and the Holy See currently has formal diplomatic relations with 169 nations, including the United States, and maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad;
Whereas, although the Holy See was an active participant in a wide range of United Nations activities since 1946, and was eligible to become a member state of the United Nations, it chose instead to become a nonmember state with Permanent Observer status over 36 years ago, in 1964;
Whereas, unlike other geographically small countries such as Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, and Liechtenstein, the Holy See does not possess a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations;
Whereas, according to a July 1998 assessment by the United States Department of State, `(t)he United States values the Holy See's significant contributions to international peace and human rights';
Whereas during the past year, certain organizations that oppose the views of the Holy See regarding abortion and the sanctity of human life have initiated an organized effort to pressure the United Nations to remove the Permanent Observer status of the Holy See; and
Whereas the removal of the Holy See's Permanent Observer status would constitute an expulsion of the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress
(1) commends the Holy See for its unique contributions to a thoughtful and robust dialogue in issues of international concern during its 36 years as a Permanent Observer at the United Nations;
(2) strongly objects to any effort to expel the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant by removing its status as a nonmember state Permanent Observer;
(3) believes that any degradation of the status accorded to the Holy See at the United Nations would seriously damage the credibility of the United Nations by demonstrating that its rules of participation are manipulable for ideological reasons rather than being rooted in neutral principles and objective facts of sovereignty; and
(4) contends that any degradation of the status of the Holy See will damage relations between the United States and the United Nations.
But the pope is protected by diplomatic immunity because more than 170 countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. They recognize it as a sovereign state and the pope as its sovereign head.
Below is the resolution before the U.S. Senate to defend the Vatican's special diplomatic status at the United Nations. A similar resolution H.CON.RES.253.IH is before the House of Representatives.
Whereas the Holy See is the governing authority of the sovereign State of Vatican City;
Whereas the Holy See has an internationally recognized legal personality, which allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives;
Whereas the diplomatic history of the Holy See began over 1,600 years ago, during the 4th century A.D., and the Holy See currently has formal diplomatic relations with 169 nations, including the United States, and maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad;
Whereas, although the Holy See was an active participant in a wide range of United Nations activities since 1946, and was eligible to become a member state of the United Nations, it chose instead to become a nonmember state with Permanent Observer status over 36 years ago, in 1964;
Whereas, unlike other geographically small countries such as Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, and Liechtenstein, the Holy See does not possess a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations;
Whereas, according to a July 1998 assessment by the United States Department of State, `(t)he United States values the Holy See's significant contributions to international peace and human rights';
Whereas during the past year, certain organizations that oppose the views of the Holy See regarding abortion and the sanctity of human life have initiated an organized effort to pressure the United Nations to remove the Permanent Observer status of the Holy See; and
Whereas the removal of the Holy See's Permanent Observer status would constitute an expulsion of the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress
(1) commends the Holy See for its unique contributions to a thoughtful and robust dialogue in issues of international concern during its 36 years as a Permanent Observer at the United Nations;
(2) strongly objects to any effort to expel the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant by removing its status as a nonmember state Permanent Observer;
(3) believes that any degradation of the status accorded to the Holy See at the United Nations would seriously damage the credibility of the United Nations by demonstrating that its rules of participation are manipulable for ideological reasons rather than being rooted in neutral principles and objective facts of sovereignty; and
(4) contends that any degradation of the status of the Holy See will damage relations between the United States and the United Nations.
But the pope is protected by diplomatic immunity because more than 170 countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. They recognize it as a sovereign state and the pope as its sovereign head.
Below is the resolution before the U.S. Senate to defend the Vatican's special diplomatic status at the United Nations. A similar resolution H.CON.RES.253.IH is before the House of Representatives.
Whereas the Holy See is the governing authority of the sovereign State of Vatican City;
Whereas the Holy See has an internationally recognized legal personality, which allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives;
Whereas the diplomatic history of the Holy See began over 1,600 years ago, during the 4th century A.D., and the Holy See currently has formal diplomatic relations with 169 nations, including the United States, and maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad;
Whereas, although the Holy See was an active participant in a wide range of United Nations activities since 1946, and was eligible to become a member state of the United Nations, it chose instead to become a nonmember state with Permanent Observer status over 36 years ago, in 1964;
Whereas, unlike other geographically small countries such as Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, and Liechtenstein, the Holy See does not possess a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations;
Whereas, according to a July 1998 assessment by the United States Department of State, `(t)he United States values the Holy See's significant contributions to international peace and human rights';
Whereas during the past year, certain organizations that oppose the views of the Holy See regarding abortion and the sanctity of human life have initiated an organized effort to pressure the United Nations to remove the Permanent Observer status of the Holy See; and
Whereas the removal of the Holy See's Permanent Observer status would constitute an expulsion of the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress
(1) commends the Holy See for its unique contributions to a thoughtful and robust dialogue in issues of international concern during its 36 years as a Permanent Observer at the United Nations;
(2) strongly objects to any effort to expel the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant by removing its status as a nonmember state Permanent Observer;
(3) believes that any degradation of the status accorded to the Holy See at the United Nations would seriously damage the credibility of the United Nations by demonstrating that its rules of participation are manipulable for ideological reasons rather than being rooted in neutral principles and objective facts of sovereignty; and
(4) contends that any degradation of the status of the Holy See will damage relations between the United States and the United Nations.
But the pope is protected by diplomatic immunity because more than 170 countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. They recognize it as a sovereign state and the pope as its sovereign head.
> On 6/14/12 5:30 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/14/2012 2:31 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/14/12 11:05 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?
>>>>> Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.
> On 6/15/2012 1:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/15/12 1:28 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2012 6:08 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:42:57 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/2012 3:27 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:09:45 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2012 5:11 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>>> The problem is that cities can't grant diplomatic immunity.
>>>>>>> Ever hear of the Vatican, dumb fuck?
>>>>>> Last I knew, the Vatican was not in the U.S.
>>>>>> It's also its own country, stupid.
>>>>> So you concede that cities can offer diplomatic immunity.
> Below is the resolution before the U.S. Senate to defend the Vatican's
> special diplomatic status at the United Nations. A similar resolution
> H.CON.RES.253.IH is before the House of Representatives.
> Whereas the Holy See is the governing authority of the sovereign State
> of Vatican City;
> Whereas the Holy See has an internationally recognized legal
> personality, which allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical
> equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives;
> Whereas the diplomatic history of the Holy See began over 1,600 years
> ago, during the 4th century A.D., and the Holy See currently has formal
> diplomatic relations with 169 nations, including the United States, and
> maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad;
> Whereas, although the Holy See was an active participant in a wide range
> of United Nations activities since 1946, and was eligible to become a
> member state of the United Nations, it chose instead to become a
> nonmember state with Permanent Observer status over 36 years ago, in 1964;
> Whereas, unlike other geographically small countries such as Monaco,
> Nauru, San Marino, and Liechtenstein, the Holy See does not possess a
> vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations;
> Whereas, according to a July 1998 assessment by the United States
> Department of State, `(t)he United States values the Holy See's
> significant contributions to international peace and human rights';
> Whereas during the past year, certain organizations that oppose the
> views of the Holy See regarding abortion and the sanctity of human life
> have initiated an organized effort to pressure the United Nations to
> remove the Permanent Observer status of the Holy See; and
> Whereas the removal of the Holy See's Permanent Observer status would
> constitute an expulsion of the Holy See from the United Nations as a
> state participant: Now, therefore, be it
> Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That
> Congress
> (1) commends the Holy See for its unique contributions to a thoughtful
> and robust dialogue in issues of international concern during its 36
> years as a Permanent Observer at the United Nations;
> (2) strongly objects to any effort to expel the Holy See from the United
> Nations as a state participant by removing its status as a nonmember
> state Permanent Observer;
> (3) believes that any degradation of the status accorded to the Holy See
> at the United Nations would seriously damage the credibility of the
> United Nations by demonstrating that its rules of participation are
> manipulable for ideological reasons rather than being rooted in neutral
> principles and objective facts of sovereignty; and
> (4) contends that any degradation of the status of the Holy See will
> damage relations between the United States and the United Nations.
> But the pope is protected by diplomatic immunity because more than 170
> countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with
> the Vatican. They recognize it as a sovereign state and the pope as its
> sovereign head.
Sovereign state. And the Pope get diplomatic immunity as its head. Not because he lives in a city.
<snip/>
> On 6/14/2012 7:18 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/14/12 5:28 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2012 2:27 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/12 11:03 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2012 11:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "Colonization" is just part of your ignorant and malicious fever
>>>>>> dreams.
>>>>> You wear the mantle of liar, for now and always:
>>>>> Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
>>>>> conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
>>>>> in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are
>>>>> taught
>>>>> in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
>>>>> “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…
>>>>> • In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
>>>>> affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
>>>>> by its borders.”
>>>> This is what happens when you're an ignoramus
>>> Yes it is, and you are, now eat some more reality bites, shitwind:
>> Oh, look! An ignoramus snips the context and calls me names.
>> Zedillo was talking about the participation of Mexican expats in
>> *Mexico*.
>> Quit lying.
> Pestilennt liar.
> Zedillo was referring (as Mexico's government still does) to the Mexican
> Government's mandated and operating mission for its "Institute of
> Mexicans Abroad" of which El Presidente of Mexico is the "head."
No, he wasn't. How do I know he was talking about Mexicans abroad and their relationship to Mexico? Because I watched the video beyond the quote.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:53:40 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>On 6/15/2012 1:38 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:27:00 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2012 6:06 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:36:37 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/2012 3:26 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:11:26 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2012 5:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>>> So all Chinese should be deported just because some are here
>>>>>>>> illegally?
>>>>>>> Why are you shilling for anchor babies?
>>>>>> I'm not.
>>>>> Shut up shill, you're a lightweight.
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:06:36 -0500, Kent Wills<compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:36:37 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/2012 3:26 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:11:26 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2012 5:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>>> So all Chinese should be deported just because some are here
>>>>>>>> illegally?
>>>>>>> Why are you shilling for anchor babies?
>>>>>> I'm not.
>>>>> Shut up shill, you're a lightweight.
>>>> How odd that someone you call a lightweight is clearly besting
>>>> you.
>>> No, you have plenty of company, shill.
>> That others have bested you is a claim that is easy to accept.
>> BTW, what do you propose I am shilling?
>Drop dead, shill.
Again, what do you propose I am shilling?
-- "I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:53:56 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:39:45 -0500, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:37:55 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/2012 3:26 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>> City officials are certainly not "immune" to federal or state
>>>>>>>> prosecutors for not enforcing the law." In fact defying it.
>>>>>> When have they defied any law?
>>>>> Are you a total moron illegal shill?
>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:07:14 -0500, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:37:55 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>>On 6/14/2012 3:26 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>> City officials are certainly not "immune" to federal or state
>>>>>>> >prosecutors for not enforcing the law." In fact defying it.
>>>>>> When have they defied any law?
>>>>>Are you a total moron illegal shill?
>>>> Since I'm not a moron, illegal nor a shill, no.
>>>> Now, please answer the question I asked, unless it would be too
>>>>taxing for you.
>>>Fuck off, moron.
>Below is the resolution before the U.S. Senate to defend the Vatican's >special diplomatic status at the United Nations. A similar resolution >H.CON.RES.253.IH is before the House of Representatives.
I don't see the connection between your not having the intellect
to answer a question and the resolution you cite. I also don't see
how the resolution you cite relates to your lie that U.S. cities can
grant diplomatic immunity.
-- I could write about nobel gasses, but there would be no reaction.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:54:14 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>On 6/15/2012 1:42 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:27:49 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>On 6/15/2012 6:07 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:41:27 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>>>> Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
>>>>>>> conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
>>>>>>> in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught
>>>>>>> in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
>>>>>>> “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…
>>>>>>> • In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
>>>>>>> affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
>>>>>>> by its borders.”
>>>>>> 15 years later and Mexico still hasn't taken over Belize.
>>>>>> They're sure are taking their sweet time.
>>>>> Frog/water/heat.
>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:07:25 -0500, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:41:27 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>>>>>>> Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
>>>>>>> conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
>>>>>>> in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught
>>>>>>> in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
>>>>>>> “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…
>>>>>>> • In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
>>>>>>> affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
>>>>>>> by its borders.”
>>>>>> 15 years later and Mexico still hasn't taken over Belize.
>>>>>> They're sure are taking their sweet time.
>>>>>Frog/water/heat.
>>>> You can't be as stupid as you're presenting. This is an act,
>>>>right?
>>>> Did you honestly not see what I did?
>>>You can.
>> That I can see what I did should be a given. What has me
>>surprised is that you don't.
>> Clearly I over estimated your intellect. I shall try to dumb it
>>down for you. But first I need to get an idea of how limited your
>>intellect is.
>> Do you understand the following:
>Below is the resolution before the U.S. Senate to defend the Vatican's >special diplomatic status at the United Nations. A similar resolution >H.CON.RES.253.IH is before the House of Representatives.
So your intellect is too low for something as simple as the
concept that fire is hot.
I don't think I'll be able to dumb down my points to a level you
will be able to understand. I'll try, but I don't hold out much hope
that I can bring it down to below a pre-school level.
-- I could write about nobel gasses, but there would be no reaction.
>> Contrary to what you clearly believe, The Vatican is not located
>>in the United States. Further, it is a country into itself.
>> How is it that you are so unable to understand?
>Below is the resolution before the U.S. Senate to defend the Vatican's >special diplomatic status at the United Nations. A similar resolution >H.CON.RES.253.IH is before the House of Representatives.
Your obsessive posting about the resolution doesn't explain how
you are unable to understand that the Vatican is not located in the
United States.
In fact, your post shows that it is not. How, given the evidence
that YOU provided, do you hold the view that it is located within the
United States?
-- A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 6:18 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2012 1:28 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>> Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?
>>>>>> Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.
> > Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
> > now typical posts
> What's excellent about it? Don Gabcrapo's posts are always irrelevant
> and incoherent nonsense. There are no "Anchor cities" and there is no
> Mexican "colonization." These are just wild ideas and thoughts from his
> demented imaginations.
> that consist of stuff cut and pasted from the
> > mainstream media. 90 percent of usenet seems to be a variation of Drudge
> > Report where people just share some article they saw on the internet.
There are no "Anchor cities" and there is no
Mexican "colonization."
---
says the deaf and blind
> On Jun 13, 5:23 pm, "Mr.Sandman" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 1:18 PM, Hisler wrote:
>>> Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
>>> now typical posts
>> What's excellent about it? Don Gabcrapo's posts are always irrelevant
>> and incoherent nonsense. There are no "Anchor cities" and there is no
>> Mexican "colonization." These are just wild ideas and thoughts from his
>> demented imaginations.
>> that consist of stuff cut and pasted from the
>>> mainstream media. 90 percent of usenet seems to be a variation of Drudge
>>> Report where people just share some article they saw on the internet.
> There are no "Anchor cities" and there is no
> Mexican "colonization."
> ---
> says the deaf and blind
Says thinly veiled spokespersons for the colonizing MxGov.
