The UN: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

[PoliticalChic]

1. “Can’t we all just get along?” Such a benign, and beguiling idea….one short step from Utopia! Everyone can sit around singing ‘Kumbaya.’ ‘Cause, groups coming together to solve big problems always agree, and always come up with the just solution….don’t they?

a. No…they don’t. Last time we saw the experiment, it was called ‘the worker’s paradise….’ and one hundred million paid with there lives in the interests of unanimity.

2. Let’s be clear: on a world-wide stage, the alternative is national sovereignty, Sans the strong arm of the United States, the United Nations is seen for what it is: a luncheon club for windbags who don’t pay their parking tickets. Yet, it serves an important function for the totalitarians who dream of world domination: a ‘front’ as they slowly but surely embezzle power, primarily in our nation.






3. We’ve all heard of ‘Those who do not study history…,” and there are enough of them to have captured the election, and as a result, have trampled on the origins of America.

4. When Alexander Hamilton visited his home, Jefferson pointed to portraits of Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, saying, “They are my trinity of the three greatest men the world has ever produced.” Locke advocated “democratic sovereignty,” arguing that authority was legitimate only with the consent of the governed. So…how does that fit with ceding some of our sovereignty to a UN body? Here you go:

“ The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.”
Locke, “Of Civil Government,” bk2, ch19, sect.217.

5. Abraham Lincoln, as well, was pretty clear in his definition of sovereignty as “a political community, without a political superior.” Internet History Sourcebooks





6. Since elected officials are not ready to announce to all that we’re packing in our sovereignty….how do the globalists insinuate their way into control?
Language. Think about the advertising industry, and how much money and effort they put into using just the right language….And politicians investing in ‘focus groups.’ Lawyers into jury consultants.
And, after all, who could argue against “universal human rights”???


7. But, you see...“universal human rights" is a fantasy, as is Utopia, or a 'worker's paradise.'
Unless we are prepared to deny the existence of “universal human rights" our freedom to rule our nation is gone. Americans must assert, as did Locke, that “universal human rights” can be realized “only within particular commonwealths” whose governments are based on “popular consent and respect for individual rights.”
Plattner, “Democracy Without Borders? Global Challenges to Liberal Democracy,” p. 128.





8. Beware the ‘sheep’s clothing’ of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), or United Nations convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, (CEDAW), or the Rights of the Child Convention, etc.

a. And more! Far more: Global governance movement claims precedence over a wide variety of issues: budget practices, law enforcement, criminal law, criminal law, school curriculum, textbooks, immigration, border enforcement, healthcare, parental care, discipline of children, employment, multilingualism, gender composition of government bodies, among others. UN Human Rights treaties address all of the above.
From "Sovereignty of Submission," John Fonte



And all they want in return is our freedom.

 

[hazlnut]

You have no clue what the UN does.

You're an idiot.

A super-Idiot.

Do you have a costume for a super hero whose power is to talk out of her own ass and then shove her head up her own ass? Because that's what you are. Make sure there is an opening in the ass area for all your super powers.

 

[Truthmatters]

she thinks people are NOT GOOD.


its how she operates her christiany life

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have no clue what the UN does.

You're an idiot.

A super-Idiot.

Do you have a costume for a super hero whose power is to talk out of her own ass and then shove her head up her own ass? Because that's what you are. Make sure there is an opening in the ass area for all your super powers.

When one posts a content-empty anger-toned post, as you just did, it indicates that I have skewered some of their most deeply-held prejudices.

Great.


I live to do so.


That sound? Me, giggling at your anger and your inability to either deal with the truth of my OP, or your rage!


With very little effort, you have become to serious posters what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.
Losers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

she thinks people are NOT GOOD.


its how she operates her christiany life

I try so very hard to prevent you from embarrassing yourself, and looking like an idiot....but you must try to work with me on this.

Here:

1. A liberal axiom is that harmony is natural. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.”


2. First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (1917–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924–53): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (1937–45): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (1945–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s
regime (1949–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 million
Tibet (1950 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,000
Congo Free State (1886–1908): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 million
Mexico (1910–20): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians (1915–23): . . . . . 1.5 million
China (1917–28): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,000
China, Nationalist era (1928–37): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 million
Korean War (1950–53): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (1959–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
Second Indochina War (1960–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 million
Ethiopia (1962–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Nigeria (1966–70): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Bangladesh (1971): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975–78): . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 million
Mozambique (1975–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Afghanistan (1979–2001): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 million
Iran–Iraq War (1980–88): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Sudan (1983 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 million
Kinshasa, Congo (1998 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 million
Philippines Insurgency (1899–1902): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,000
Brazil (1900 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Amazonia (1900–1912): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Portuguese colonies (1900–1925): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325,000
French colonies (1900–1940): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Japanese War (1904–5): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
German East Africa (1905–7): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Libya (1911–31): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000
Balkan Wars (1912–13): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,000
Greco–Turkish War (1919–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Spanish Civil War (1936–39): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365,000
Franco Regime (1939–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
Abyssinian Conquest (1935–41): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Finnish War (1939–40): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Greek Civil War (1943–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,000
Yugoslavia, Tito’s regime (1944–80): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
First Indochina War (1945–54): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Colombia (1946–58): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
India (1947): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Romania (1948–89): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Burma/Myanmar (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
Algeria (1954–62): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537,000
Sudan (1955–72): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Guatemala (1960–96): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Indonesia (1965–66): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Uganda, Idi Amin’s regime (1972–79): . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Vietnam, postwar Communist regime
(1975 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430,000
Angola (1975–2002): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,000
East Timor, conquest by Indonesia (1975–99): . . . . . 200,000
Lebanon (1975–90): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Cambodian Civil War (1978–91): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,000
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979–2003): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Uganda (1979–86): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Liberia (1989–97): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Iraq (1990– ): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Somalia (1991 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000




3. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival”
in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -
other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the
theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was
awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature. “Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or
without it you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things,
that takes religion”.
In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not
one member of his audience asking the question one might
have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."



How you feel now, boooooyyyyyyeeeee??

 

[Mad Scientist]

You have no clue what the UN does.

You're an idiot.

A super-Idiot.

Do you have a costume for a super hero whose power is to talk out of her own ass and then shove her head up her own ass? Because that's what you are. Make sure there is an opening in the ass area for all your super powers.

YOU have no clue what the UN does. But Obama DOES!

He put our Military under UN Control.

Agenda 21 was introduced at the Rio Summit in 1992. That's 20 years for you to discover it and learn about it. Here's a link, educate yourself:

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mad Scientist]

You have no clue what the UN does.
You're an idiot. A super-Idiot.
Do you have a costume for a super hero whose power is to talk out of her own ass and then shove her head up her own ass? Because that's what you are. Make sure there is an opening in the ass area for all your super powers.

When one posts a content-empty anger-toned post, as you just did, it indicates that I have skewered some of their most deeply-held prejudices.
Great.
I live to do so.
That sound? Me, giggling at your anger and your inability to either deal with the truth of my OP, or your rage!
With very little effort, you have become to serious posters what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.
Losers.

HazelNuts is one of the most ignorant, uninformed people here.

 

[Mad Scientist]

she thinks people are NOT GOOD.
its how she operates her christiany life

Should she dumb it down for your Satany life?

 

[g5000]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

UN Global governance will replace our Constitution. The Constitution was written PRECISELY so that Kings in foreign lands (The UN) can't tell us what to do and that the People are the Sovereign, not Kings.

If you don't understand that then there's no hope for you.

 

[mjollnir]

1. “Can’t we all just get along?” Such a benign, and beguiling idea….one short step from Utopia! Everyone can sit around singing ‘Kumbaya.’ ‘Cause, groups coming together to solve big problems always agree, and always come up with the just solution….don’t they?

No one rational has ever suggest the above is true. Start with a false premise, and devolve into your usual psychobabble.

a. No…they don’t. Last time we saw the experiment, it was called ‘the worker’s paradise….’ and one hundred million paid with there lives in the interests of unanimity.

You're opening quote has absolutely nothing to do with your 'a' above.

2. Let’s be clear: on a world-wide stage, the alternative is national sovereignty, Sans the strong arm of the United States, the United Nations is seen for what it is: a luncheon club for windbags who don’t pay their parking tickets. Yet, it serves an important function for the totalitarians who dream of world domination: a ‘front’ as they slowly but surely embezzle power, primarily in our nation.

Your '2' above has nothing to do with your opening quote or your 'a' above.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Have you ever considered taking thinking lessons? I'd chip in, oh, $1.17 for them.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Mega Rich Banker John D. Rockefeller Sr. donated land for the establishment of the UN building. Now why the f*ck would he do that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

1. Always available to teach those who 'eagerly await'!
To be more informed, pick up Fonte's "Sovereignty or Submission."

2. Take a look at events of October, 2001. Forty seven American human rights and civil rights activists sent a letter to the UN’s high commission for human rights, demanding that the United States be targeted over “pervasive and persistent patterns of racial discrimination…” They charged that the government has not met its obligations to eliminate discrimination despite its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1994. The demands included:

a. Reparations to people of African descent
b. Admission that statistical disparities between the races is the result of systemic racism in the United States.
c. Affirmative action
d. An adequate standard of living is a right, not privilege.
e. Emphasis on anything other than multilingualism is discriminatory
f. Admission that free-market capitalism is a flawed system.

3. Any view of the processes involved in implementing these proposals would involve a collision with the American democratic system. Certainly the activists and NGO’s who indicted the United States don’t like the decision-making process within the American democracy, and were resorting to a process outside of the U.S. Constitution.

4. The actions and interests of the party of global governance illustrates the postconstitutional agenda that will be fought this century.

a. The government ratified CERD, with reservations removing restrictions on so called hate-speech. The NGO’s and activists bitterly opposed any reservations related to the treaty.

b. “…human rights groups, 12 of which presented their views here, rejected the report, saying that the government had ignored the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the United States and that the report had omitted pledges of action to solve remaining problems…. They also asked why Washington had refused to sign the portion of the treaty barring racist speech.” U.S. Reports Progress in Fighting Bias - Rights Groups Are Critical - NYTimes.com

5. The US policies satisfied neither the UN committee nor the NGOs, who would not accept equal treatment for minorities, but, rather, equal results- that is to say, statistical equality among the races in all areas of American society.

a. Erika George, attorney for Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had “simply reiterated a position which already doesn’t comply with the CERD and which indicates no willingness to comply.”

b. To be clear, to comply, the United States would have to abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule.


6. Global governance, e.g., the UN, is an existential threat to American democracy.

 

[BlindBoo]

The real power of the UN is in the 5 permanant members of the Securtiy Council. Those are the only wolves......

 

[OKTexas]

The UN is a waste of resources, the US should get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.

 

[g5000]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

UN Global governance will replace our Constitution. The Constitution was written PRECISELY so that Kings in foreign lands (The UN) can't tell us what to do and that the People are the Sovereign, not Kings.

If you don't understand that then there's no hope for you.

Our US Constitution was written so that no international convention will be obeyed without the advice and consent of the US Senate and the signature of the President.

If you don't understand that, then there is no hope for YOU.

.

 

[g5000]

So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?

Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.

I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.

.

1. Always available to teach those who 'eagerly await'!
To be more informed, pick up Fonte's "Sovereignty or Submission."

2. Take a look at events of October, 2001. Forty seven American human rights and civil rights activists sent a letter to the UN’s high commission for human rights, demanding that the United States be targeted over “pervasive and persistent patterns of racial discrimination…” They charged that the government has not met its obligations to eliminate discrimination despite its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1994. The demands included:

a. Reparations to people of African descent
b. Admission that statistical disparities between the races is the result of systemic racism in the United States.
c. Affirmative action
d. An adequate standard of living is a right, not privilege.
e. Emphasis on anything other than multilingualism is discriminatory
f. Admission that free-market capitalism is a flawed system.

3. Any view of the processes involved in implementing these proposals would involve a collision with the American democratic system. Certainly the activists and NGO’s who indicted the United States don’t like the decision-making process within the American democracy, and were resorting to a process outside of the U.S. Constitution.

4. The actions and interests of the party of global governance illustrates the postconstitutional agenda that will be fought this century.

a. The government ratified CERD, with reservations removing restrictions on so called hate-speech. The NGO’s and activists bitterly opposed any reservations related to the treaty.

b. “…human rights groups, 12 of which presented their views here, rejected the report, saying that the government had ignored the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the United States and that the report had omitted pledges of action to solve remaining problems…. They also asked why Washington had refused to sign the portion of the treaty barring racist speech.” U.S. Reports Progress in Fighting Bias - Rights Groups Are Critical - NYTimes.com

5. The US policies satisfied neither the UN committee nor the NGOs, who would not accept equal treatment for minorities, but, rather, equal results- that is to say, statistical equality among the races in all areas of American society.

a. Erika George, attorney for Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had “simply reiterated a position which already doesn’t comply with the CERD and which indicates no willingness to comply.”

b. To be clear, to comply, the United States would have to abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule.


6. Global governance, e.g., the UN, is an existential threat to American democracy.

So in 2001, ELEVEN YEARS AGO, some nutjobs filed a complaint, and you are just now getting around to it?

Did we make reparations? Was the claim even given any legitimacy?

I can make a claim the US owes me a steak dinner and throw up some treaty as being the reason I am owed a steak dinner. That is not evidence the treaty itself is sucking away our national sovereignty and retroactively killing WWI soldiers.


Try again.

Quote the relevant parts of the treaties which have your panties in a bunch, and explain what those parts are doing to us. Show us actual examples where we have had to "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule" because of those.

.


.

 

[g5000]

From Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

"He" being the President.


If we sign a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

If you claim that treaty required us to buy every darkie a steak dinner and give them 40 acres and a mule, you not only have to show me where it says that, you have to show me we actually gave every darkie a steak dinner and 40 acres and a mule.


Anyone can make a wild assed claim about the effects of a treaty. But it takes real evidence to prove where it says in the treaty what is claimed and that it actually happened that way.

.

 

[g5000]

Sooner or later, you would think people would learn not to take the word of some partisan hack on the radio or TV about what is in a Congressional bill, or the President's mind, or a UN treaty. You would think after being shown time and time again they are being poured a drum of piss, they would figure it out and start reading bills and treaties for themselves.

.

 

[hazlnut]

The fringe-right loves their bogeymen.

Like children telling ghost stories, they embrace this bullshit.

*Acorn

*Voter fraud

*UN

*Media