Friday, November 27, 2009

United Nations - One World Government

The United Nations

Liberal democrats such as Barack Obama and others speak with reverence about the United Nations. Obama wants to give the U.N. billions of our tax dollars to help solve the world’s problems; after all it’s easy for many politicians to be generous with other people’s money (especially liberals). John Kerry was always telling us that we needed the U.N.’s permission to defend ourselves against Islamic-fascism. Bill Clinton called the U.N.’s human rights agenda: the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights one of the most important documents in human history.

For most of its history starting in 1945, the United Nations has been involved in a larger conflict known as the “Korean War” and later has often been occupied with what it calls “peacekeeping missions.” What a success story they have been – the truth is that more recently UN peacekeepers are more likely to be involved in the rape and plunder of the nations they are supposed to be stabilizing than trying to combat those who would disrupt the peace. Let’s list some of the places where the UN has kept the peace – Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, triumph after triumph. Then there’s the infamous UN oil for food program in Iraq. How many millionaires did that one create?

In fairness the United Nations, largely with the financial assistance of U.S. taxpayers, has done a rather good job of monitoring and addressing potential health crises in various parts of the Third World. That’s about it. That’s how they escape being labeled a 100 percent pure, unadulterated failure.

Let’s examine one of the most important documents in human history according to Bill Clinton, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here’s the opening paragraph of its Preamble…

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

It sounds pretty good so far – it’s a good start. It goes on to list some of the other rights that we as citizens of the world are entitled to – some of these rights sound like they came right out of our own Constitution:

• Human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
• The right to life, liberty, and security of person.
• The right not to be held in slavery.
• The right to protection from torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment.
• The right to a presumption of innocence.
• The right to privacy.
• The right to freedom of movement within the borders of your own state.
• The right to own property.
• The right to freedom of opinion and expression.
• The right to peacefully assemble.
• The right to marry.
• The right to social security.
• The right to work.
• The right to protection against unemployment.
• The right to equal pay for equal work.
• The right to rest and leisure.
• The right to a paid vacation.
• The right to an adequate standard of living.
• The right to enjoy the arts.
• The right to an education.

The right to rest and leisure? The right to enjoy the arts? The right to a paid vacation? Whatever! We could argue the merit and validity of any of these rights and it would be a complete waste of our time. Why? Because every single one of the rights listed above is nothing but vapor. They’re invalidated by an escape clause so outrageous it should be considered its own crime against humanity. Check it out…

Article 29(3) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

After giving us the human rights mentioned above to which every human being is entitled, in one twenty-word sentence it takes all those rights away. Think about it. There you were enjoying your rights to freedom of expression, to freedom of movement, to own property, to be presumed innocent before a court of law. Maybe even exercising your wonderful God-given right to enjoy the arts! What happens if the United Nations comes up with some “goal or purpose” that would be inconvenienced by your exercise of these rights?

They’re Gone!

Read 29(3) again. Apparently, if the UN decides that your right to free speech, or to own and remain in your home, stands in the way of some UN goal (say, seizing your home), you’re out of luck. Here’s the sobering truth: If the United Nations comes up with some grand scheme that would require seizing you and placing you into slavery, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights offers you no protection whatsoever. In fact it positively affirms that the UN’s own rights trump your own.

Under our Constitution the federal government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. That means the government gets its powers from us. The United Nations sees things a different way. Under their hideous human rights declaration, the people derive their rights – their power – from the United Nations, and when the United Nations adopts some goal or purpose that’s inconsistent with our exercise of these rights, the rights go right into the toilet.

Peace is worthless without liberty, and justice is when someone gets what he or she deserves. Bill Clinton believes, for instance, that the U.S. Constitution gave us our rights. Those of us who didn’t believe everything government schools taught us probably have a different view. To me this is one of many clues (or red flags) about what liberal democrats want for us and our country. They want our power and almost half (maybe more) of us are willing to give it to them. They are looking out for themselves and not for us I assure you.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights can only appeal to three groups…

1. Those who love government.
2. Those who love tyrants.
3. Those educated in government schools.
Here Comes the Judge?

Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:19 PM

Given Hillary Clinton's stated regret that the United States is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, there is a real possibility that the Obama administration intends to allow American soldiers in Afghanistan to be tried in the in the Hague.

This is not only terribly wrong, it is gravely dangerous to US security. If America -- which has some of the world's strictest rules of engagement, and already punishes those who trangress them -- agrees to subject its soldiers to inherently selective international prosecution, no one could blame young people for declining to join the military. What's more, it allows a bunch of international judges effectively to define the permissible limits of the warfare conducted by Americans, and offers an opportunity for them to wield enormous (and unjustified) authority over our troops, our strategy and our defenses -- a clear violation of our sovereignty.

Soldiers' hands are already being tied enough -- and their ability to defend themselves constrained enough -- by the new, PC era in the Obama armed forces. Subjecting them to international jurisdiction would be the last straw.

Think of the irony: If this treaty went through, in Obamaland, terrorists who attack our country would be entitled to all the protections of American justice in our homeland; the brave men and women who defend us would be handed over to the tender mercies of the (often anti-American) international bureaucrats in the Hague. Outrageous.

No comments: