Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category
The Senate voted earlier to block the U.S. from joining the treaty, but Obama is likely to sign it anyway.
He’s already heading out onto the never-ending campaign trail to stump for more gun control. He wants to stir up public pressure to force the Senate to ratify it. If they do, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights good-bye.
This morning, by a vote of 154 nations in favor (including the United States), 23 abstentions, and three against (Syria, North Korea, and Iran), the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty will be open for national signature on June 3, 2013, and will enter into force for its signatories when it has been signed and ratified by 50 nations.
Though the vote in favor of the treaty seems overwhelming, a closer look shows something different. Among the major exporting and importing nations, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Russia abstained. So did most of the Arab Group, as well as a range of anti-American regimes, including Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, and a smattering of others, including Belarus, Burma, and Sri Lanka.
A further 13 nations did not vote, including some known opponents of the treaty, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Finally, while Pakistan voted in favor of the treaty, its statement in explanation implied that it was voting for the treaty because it anticipated that India would abstain, and it wanted to look good by comparison.
Thus, what the U.N. vote amounts to is the tacit rejection of the treaty by most of the world’s most irresponsible arms exporters and anti-American dictatorships, who collectively amount to half of the world’s population.
Ken Klukowski warns, “What Americans Need To Know About The UN Gun Control Treaty“:
Today the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a global gun control treaty called the Arms Trade Treaty. Now the fight begins here at home. There are several things gun owners need to know to protect their constitutional rights.
Now that it’s been proposed, the treaty goes to all the member states to decide on whether to join. Per the U.S. Constitution, in America it must first be signed by the president (which it will), then be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate (which it won’t). The United States is not likely to join the treaty as a nation, though President Barack Obama will likely push for it.
The General Assembly can’t do anything at the United Nations except propose (not establish) treaties and admit new U.N. members. Most of the power at the U.N. is in the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members (including the U.S.) and ten rotating seats among all the other U.N. members. So the General Assembly did one of the only things it can by recommending this treaty to its member states.
However, the first danger is that U.S. courts have held we’re bound by “customary international law,” sometimes called the “law of nations.” If enough U.N. member states were to adopt this treaty, a liberal federal court could rule it has become customary international law. The current Supreme Court would never affirm such a ruling, but there is a real danger if Obama changes the balance of the Court over the next three years.
Because federal statutes and treaties are of equal force under the U.S. Constitution, whenever they are in direct conflict, the most-recently passed of the two prevails. So, if somehow this treaty were ratified by the Senate, if Congress were to later pass a statute taking the opposite position, it would trump the treaty.
Of course, you need a president’s signature to pass a statute or two-thirds of Congress to override a presidential veto, so we would need a president in 2016 who supports the Second Amendment to pass such a law.
[…] The dangers are obvious, however. If Barack Obama manages to get an anti-gun politician like Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo to follow him in 2016 as president, and changes the balance of the Supreme Court over time, then the Arms Trade Treaty could open America up to a worldwide U.N. gun control regime. That could lay the groundwork and set up a system that a decade or two from now could restrict lawful firearm ownership in this nation.
In the twisted mind of the Left (the ideology of which the United Nations is the primary propagandist), telling a woman that she can’t murder her child is the same as genitally mutilating her.
Offering a person the counseling and therapy needed to address the deep wounds at the root of same-sex attraction is equal to torturing and beating them.
You can’t even reason with someone that detached from reality and logic. Black is white, up is down, wrong is right, love is hate, night is day…and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.
A recent United Nations report on torture and mistreatment in health care systems around the world singled out lack of access to abortion as a form of “torture,” classifying it as a human rights violation on par with female genital mutilation, forced sterilizations and state-sanctioned beatings.
The report also says governments should recognize the preferred sex of ‘transgender’ individuals without regard to biology, arguing that forcing such people to undergo sex-reassignment surgery in order to prove their case is equivalent to torture.
[…] The report calls for the “elimination of homophobia” in health care settings, calling on “all States to repeal any law allowing intrusive and irreversible treatments, including forced genital-normalizing surgery … ‘reparative therapies’ or ‘conversion therapies,’ when enforced or administered without the free and informed consent of the person concerned.”
[…] One of the main ‘protection gaps’ identified was a lack of easy access to abortion in some countries.
“The Committee against Torture has repeatedly expressed concerns about restrictions on access to abortion and about absolute bans on abortion as violating the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,” Mendez wrote.
In the densely-worded 23-page report, Mendez devotes an entire section to “Reproductive Rights Violations.” While a list of violations towards the beginning of the section includes female genital mutilation, forced abortion, and forced sterilizations, much of the text that follows is focused on abortion access.
The tyrants at the UN won’t be satisfied until every citizen capable of resisting them world-wide is disarmed into sitting ducks. If just 2/3 of the Senate votes to ratify this treaty, our gun rights will be in serious jeopardy.
The fact that Democrats are willing to take the side of other nations against their own fellow citizens’ constitutional right to self-defense reveals how traitorous they truly are.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said there was not enough support to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein the stand-alone vote she demands on the “assault weapon” ban, but the upper chamber may soon be the deciding factor in whether the United States ratifies an international treaty that could strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
On Monday, the United States joined in the nine day conference in New York to finalize negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty is intended to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons, but depending how the final document is worded, it could put at risk Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
The countries were negotiating the draft last July, but stopped when the U.S. asked for a delay. Many believe Mr. Obama pushed the issue past Election Day in order not to further alienate gun owners. Now that he has more “flexibility” in his second term, the U.S. is back at the table.
Secretary of State John Kerry has encouraged reaching consensus by March 28. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” he wrote in a statement Friday.
[…] Mr. Obama will likely go ahead and sign the treaty as it is. Then the only thing standing in the way of the U.N. stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights is if he can get two-thirds of the Senate to ratify.
Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.
Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
We have noted that a paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been “misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.”
Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a “misuse?”
[…] Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal “places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality” and represents a threat to U.S. national security.
Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.
Interestingly, just as the world’s worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America’s enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.
The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.
The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.
Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won’t infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t reassure us.
UPDATE: Defeated in the Senate 53-46. We dodged a bullet…this year.
This is what ICLEI and Agenda 21 look like when they are put into implementation at the local level.
Generated energy in Oregon could soon come from the waves of the Pacific Ocean.
The state is setting up a number of buoys along the Oregon coast in an effort to reduce the state’s carbon footprint.
Officials say large energy utility companies must generate 25% of thier energy through renewable sources by the year 2025.
Where does that 25% figure come from, you ask? From state bureaucrats who are trying to implement Agenda 21, a utopian environmentalist scheme from the United Nations.
Oddly, energy from hydroelectric sources such as the Columbia River dams are NOT counted as “renewable.” If water continually flowing down a river isn’t considered “renewable,” why would the ocean’s waves be any different?
The final product must go through a final stage but the current models suggest that one buoy would create enough energy to power nearly 40 homes.
If one buoy can only power 40 homes, how many buoys would have to choke the ocean’s surface to provide the necessary power for millions of coastal residents and businesses? How many fishing areas, recreational areas, ocean views, and natural habitats will be compromised by all these “green” buoys?
Environmentalists are willing to destroy the livelihoods of fishermen who have harvested the seas for generations. They are willing to destroy the property values of seaside residents for whom ocean views and beach access are top selling points. They’re willing to destroy local industries like tourism and sport fishing. And they’re willing to do it under the radar, where voters are given little to no opportunity to fight back.
For what purpose? To harvest expensive, financially unsustainable “wave energy” that requires enormous federal subsidies to stay afloat (so to speak). All in the name of “green energy” and “fighting global warming.”
The only “green” you’ll see will be in the pockets of those who profit from wave energy technology, while millions of seaside residents who have made their living from the ocean find their communities and livelihoods destroyed.
Unsurprisingly, local residents are upset by these developments:
Growing heartburn among Lincoln County residents has spread north to Tillamook and south to Coos Bay and beyond as more people find out about the state’s plans to remove large tracks of fishing grounds along the Oregon Coast. Tillamook residents rose up angrily Thursday to challenge what they called kicking out commercial and recreational fishing with its hundreds of millions of dollars in annual economic benefits for a few paltry electrical jobs for those monitoring offshore wave energy machines.
Besides deeply wounding the Oregon Coast fishing industry, residents charged that offshore wave energy would ruin views of the ocean, disrupt whale migrations and severely damage the coast’s tourism industry. And what really made them upset was that the Territorial Sea Plan pursued by Governor Kitzhaber’s staff and ocean policy committee, along with the State Land Conservation and Development Commission, have been putting it together largely outside of the public eye.
Lincoln County Commissioner and commercial fisherman Terry Thompson told the Tillamook County Futures Council that although the territorial sea plan, aimed at accommodating wave energy generation, has been in the making for nearly four years, a map with specific locations for offshore wave energy devices did not materialize until a few weeks ago. Thompson said it leaves the public with little time to even look it over, much less react to it or make recommendations.
Many residents told the gathering they were shocked. They called it a “rush job” based on priorities they couldn’t imagine to be so important that it would justify damaging the economy of the Oregon Coast, including general tourism, commercial and recreational fishing and local property values. “With those economic sectors hammered, the coast’s economy would collapse,” one angry resident told News Lincoln County. “And for what?” he questioned. “To line the pockets of east coast investors who would get huge federal subsidies while selling expensive electricity to California to the detriment of the Oregon Coast? This is crazy.”
Whew! That was too close for comfort!
Just a few minutes ago the United States Senate rejected ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. [NOTE: Our email erroneously named the Convention on the Rights of the Child rather than the CRPD.] The vote of 61 to 38 in favor of the treaty was short of the required two-thirds margin (66 in favor) necessary to ratify a treaty according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Less than an hour before the vote, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama testified thathis office has received more than 1,000 letters and emails in opposition to the treaty – and only 40 in favor. This shows an amazing outpouring from defenders of parental rights!
While we recognize that our success in Alabama is not indicative of the support level in every state, we would not have achieved this victorious outcome without the overwhelming support of concerned Americans just like you. Thank you so much for your calls, letters, and emails to oppose this ratification!
We also appreciate your patience with us as we have filled your inbox over the last two weeks during the height of this struggle. Now that the immediate danger has passed, we will continue to keep you updated on this and other dangers to parental rights through our weekly emails. You can also follow ongoing conversation or timely updates on our Facebook page or our website.
Finally, we are grateful to these brave senators who stood firm to protect parental rights and American self-government even in the face of a loud and emotional plea from those who favored the treaty.
Director of Communications & Research
P.S. – The roll call list is available online here.
Note which Republicans voted to give away our sovereignty and parental rights to a foreign bureaucracy, and make sure they get primaried in 2012!
The Senate is about to vote on a treaty that would give European bureaucrats the right to influence American law and override parental decisions when it comes to the well-being of their children with disabilities:
The final vote on whether or not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is scheduled for noon on Tuesday, December 4. Whether our nation will continue to preserve the principles of parental rights and American self-government, or whether we will jettison these in a “symbolic gesture” of support for disabled persons around the world will be decided at that time.
We are optimistic that we will have the votes – 34 or more – to defeat the treaty. But there is too much at stake to trust to speculation.
So please remember to call your senators today, and then call them again tomorrow morning (before noon).
You can ask for their office through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or find their number by clicking on your state at http://parentalrights.org/states.
Here are a few things you might mention in your own words:
“I would urge the Senator to oppose giving consent to ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty would surrender the rights of parents whose children are disabled, by establishing the ‘best interests of the child’ legal standard. We already have excellent American-made law to protect persons with disabilities, and the world is already NOT following our example. It would be foolish to adopt a vehicle of international law in hopes that they will suddenly change their minds. This treaty also redefines entitlements as ‘economic, social, and cultural rights,’ which would have a tremendous impact on a host of domestic law issues.
Protect parental rights and American self-government, and reject this giant step toward socialism and government control of our families. Vote NO on the CRPD.”
We will be watching and listening very closely, and we will alert you to the results of the vote tomorrow as quickly as we are able. We are hopeful that the news will be good – but we must all remain diligent between now and then.
Thank you for taking a moment right now and again tomorrow to call your Senators to oppose this dangerous treaty!
Director of Communications & Research
Rick Santorum, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Michael Farris (Home School Legal Defense Association) explain in this press conference why the UN CRPD is a threat to parental rights and American sovereignty:
View on YouTube
The Heritage Foundation explains why this treaty will NOT help disabled children:
U.S. membership in CRPD would not advance U.S. national interests either at home or abroad.
The rights of Americans with disabilities are well protected under existing law and are enforced by a wide range of state and federal agencies. Joining CRPD merely opens the door for foreign “experts” to interfere in U.S. policymaking in violation of the principles of American sovereignty.
Ratification of CRPD would do nothing to improve the existing statutory framework and enforcement system for protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities.
Ratification of the CRPD is unnecessary to end discrimination against people with disabilities in the U.S. As is made clear throughout the Obama Administration’s Transmittal Package, the U.S. already has in place numerous federal laws to protect and advance the cause of Americans with disabilities. Major pieces of legislation include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Fair Housing Act.
Other federal laws that protect people with disabilities include the Telecommunications Act, the Air Carrier Access Act, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.
Unlike the broad provisions of CRPD, these federal laws were crafted to address the situation of disabled people living in the U.S., not to reflect the general opinions of the international community. The legislation is a firm foundation that can be modified or expanded as necessary through the legislative or regulatory process.
The Geneva-based Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would inevitably interfere with U.S. policymaking, thereby infringing on American sovereignty and intruding into matters wholly unrelated to disability rights.
To monitor implementation, human rights treaties usually establish a “committee of experts” to review reports from states parties on their compliance. States parties are required to submit periodic reports (usually every four years) to the committee detailing their compliance with the particular treaty.
The CRPD established the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD committee) to review periodic reports and make “such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate.”
Human rights treaty committees have been known to make demands that fall well outside the scope of the subject matter of the treaty and conflict with the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of states. This has especially been the case with the U.S.
The vote is scheduled for noon on Tuesday! Don’t wait! Call right now and tell your senators to oppose U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities!
It’s disgusting that we even have to ask such a question regarding an American president, but Obama’s certainly no friend to free speech or keeping American sovereignty safe from foreign control.
The world’s tyrants would love nothing more than to get control of the one place where international free speech still exists.
A UN agency is trying to calm fears that the internet could be damaged by a conference it is hosting.
Government regulators from 193 countries are in Dubai to revise a wide-ranging communications treaty.
Google has warned the event threatened the “open internet”, while the EU said the current system worked, adding: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But the agency said action was needed to ensure investment in infrastructure to help more people access the net.
If you believe that, I’ve got bridge to sell you.
The U.N. plans to control the tool that tyrants fear most — technology that promotes free speech and intellectual freedom — by imposing a global tax in the name of fairness. Think of net neutrality on steroids.
Elections have consequences, and one consequence of President Obama’s re-election may be U.S. acquiescence to the administrative control of the Internet to the United Nations and journalist-jailing and Web-censoring regimes from Iran to Venezuela, complete with a global tax on its use.
The U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is holding the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai from Dec. 3 to 14. U.N. member states, largely composed of Third World despots, will be meeting to update the ITU treaty arrangements for international communications.
The ITU last drafted a treaty on communications in 1988, before the dawn of the Internet as we know it, and many of the world’s thugs seek to restrict its freedoms by imposing on it a global tax. The Internet was then primarily a university network, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was a mere 4 years old.
Today, the self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask for permission to launch a website, and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs. The Internet freely crosses international boundaries, making it difficult for governments to censor or to tax.
Regimes such as Russia and Iran also want an ITU rule letting them monitor Internet traffic routed through or to their countries, allowing them to eavesdrop or block access.
The UN is a corrupt organization dominated by dictators and radical Islamists. They have no right to give Israel’s land away. They should be immediately defunded and ejected from U.S. soil.
The U.N. General Assembly approved an implicit recognition of Palestinian statehood on Thursday despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinian Authority by withholding funds for the West Bank government.
A resolution that would lift the Palestinian Authority’s U.N. observer status from “entity” to “non-member state,” like the Vatican, passed easily in the 193-nation General Assembly. The vote was 138 in favor, 9 against, 41 abstentions.
Here are the 9 nations that voted “no,” according to the AP:
Voting “no” Thursday were Israel, the United States and Canada, joined by the Czech Republic, Panama and several Pacific island nations: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.
My guess is that the only reason Obama supported a “no” vote is that he doesn’t want to lose the Jewish Democrat vote before the 2014 elections.
Individual governments are not required to comply with General Assembly resolutions. Thus, as a practical matter, the U.N. vote changes little about how other governments regard Palestinian statehood claims. The countries that already recognize “Palestine” as a state—roughly 130 countries—will continue to do so. Their support in the U.N. today for the upgrade in Palestinian status is a reflection of their position, not a new development.
Similarly, those states voting against or abstaining from the vote are unlikely to change their position because a majority of the General Assembly supported the resolution. Most notably, the U.S. and Israel do not recognize Palestinian statehood claims and see the vote as a deliberate attempt by the Palestinians to achieve their goals while circumventing negotiations with Israel.
As President Obama said when the Palestinians sought U.N. membership last year, “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” They remain insistent that recognition of “Palestine” can come only from a negotiated peace agreement with Israel.
The vote does, however, have significance in the U.N. system and for other international organizations. The Palestinian Authority will almost certainly exploit its upgrade to non-member state status to seek membership in U.N. specialized agencies, as it did last year with UNESCO. Their case will be strengthened by today’s vote. It will be particularly hard for those specialized agencies, like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Telecommunication Union, that include the Vatican among their membership to deny the Palestinians membership because the Holy See is also a U.N. non-member state observer.
U.S. law currently prohibits funding U.N. organizations that grant membership to the Palestinians. The Palestinian effort to gain membership in other U.N. specialized agencies fizzled when the U.S. cut funding for UNESCO as required by U.S. law. The most significant impediment to Palestinian membership efforts in other specialized agencies is the threat of losing U.S. funding, which means that the U.S. must maintain and enforce current law.
Somehow I doubt Obama plans to withdraw funding, which means his actions will once again speak louder than his cheap rhetoric.
This has been the holy grail for the corrupt dictators and bureaucrats in the UN for a long time, and Obama’s just crazy enough to go ahead and give it to them.
AN unfettered internet, free of political control and available to everyone could be relegated to cyber-history under a contentious proposal by a little known United Nations body.
Experts claim that Australians could see political and religious websites disappear if the Federal Government backs a plan to hand control over the internet to the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
A draft of the proposal, formulated in secret and only recently posted on the ITU website for public perusal, reveal that if accepted, the changes would allow government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet and create a global regime of monitoring internet communications – including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves.
It would also allow governments to shut down the internet if there is the belief that it may interfere in the internal affairs of other states or that information of a sensitive nature might be shared.
Telecommunications ministers from 193 countries will meet behind closed doors in Dubai next month to discuss the proposal, with Australia’s Senator Stephen Conroy among them.
The move has sparked a ferocious, under-the-radar diplomatic war between a powerful bloc of nations, led by China and Russia, who want to exert greater controls on the net and western democracies determined to preserve the free-wheeling, open architecture of the World Wide Web.
These unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats are insatiable in their desire to control how everybody in the world conducts their business.
America broke free from foreign authority for a reason.
Not even 24 hours, and they’re already going after our right to personally defend ourselves. This is going to be a LONG four years!
Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.
Funny how Obama didn’t bother to mention this part of his agenda during the campaign.
Fun fact: every nation that has ever conducted a mass confiscation of guns and disarmed its citizenry has committed genocide against that same population within 6 years. Tyrants hate it when their intended victims can shoot back.
If American or international law enforcement actually tried to start confiscating guns, it could be the trigger that sparks an outright armed rebellion.
You can always count on Texas to step up to the plate when state sovereignty is at stake.
A U.N.-affiliated group called OSCE says it intends to send observers from other countries to observe our elections here in Texas. Yes, you read that right. A UN group is coming here to Texas. It just boggles the mind. Well, our Attorney General, Greg Abbott is having none of it.
[…] Elections and election observation are regulated by state law. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE. The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.
The OSCE was not happy about that letter. Too bad. Don’t mess with Texas.
Gov. Rick Perry tweeted this in support: “No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @Txsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue.”
Texas authorities have threatened to arrest international election observers, prompting a furious response from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
“The threat of criminal sanctions against [international] observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), said in a statement. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”
We gave up all obligations to foreign powers when we issued the Declaration of Independence. Whatever they may claim, the US is not obligated to allow foreigners to interfere in our election process.
The belief that America can’t handle it’s own elections is so abhorrent that even if the left’s request for assistance from the OSCE is a stunt, they should be massively ashamed of themselves. There is a primal First Principle above all others: Citizens are capable of governing themselves. We have federal, state, and local laws to deal with any concerns expressed by either side about the fairness of the vote. The idea that these laws are not adequate is absurd.
Therefore, the only possible explanation for bringing in outsiders to “monitor” the vote is not to ensure a fair election, but to try and intimidate their political opponents. […]
If you’d like to volunteer to be a poll watcher and make sure the ballots are handled and counted honestly, go to TrueTheVote.org and sign up!
China is kidnapping and strapping fully pregnant women to tables and aborting their babies against their will. Iran is stoning women to death for “adultery” when they’re raped. North Korea is starving and torturing millions of its own citizens in concentration camps. The Taliban are shooting young girls and strapping suicide bombs to kidnapped little boys.
But who is the UN condemning for supposed human rights violations? The only democracy in the Middle East that allows freedom of speech and religion, and is the only safe haven for dissidents and religious minorities in the region:
A U.N. investigator on Palestinian human rights urged a boycott of companies tied to Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian Territories on Thursday, but the United States criticized the call as “irresponsible and unacceptable.”
Richard Falk, the independent special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Territories, said the companies – which include Hewlett Packard, Motorola, Volvo and Caterpillar – should be boycotted until they adhered to international rights standards and practices.
Settlements built on territory Israel captured in a 1967 war remain a key obstacle to a resumption of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks stalled since late 2010. About 311,000 Israeli settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank.
“The focus on business activities is partly an expression of frustration about the inability to obtain compliance with these fundamental legal obligations of Israel and the ineffectiveness of the U.N. efforts to condemn settlement expansion,” Falk, a U.S. academic who is himself Jewish, told a news conference.
“There have been calls on Israel for literally decades to stop building the settlements,” he said. “The effort to reach out beyond the traditional way that the U.N. condemns things is an effort to take our role seriously enough to feel that we should try to use what influence we have to change behavior.”
The United Nations deems all Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal. Israel disputes this and distinguishes between about 120 settlements it has sanctioned and about 100 outposts erected by settlers without authorization.
Later on Thursday, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations criticized Falk’s report, saying his “call for a boycott of private companies is irresponsible and unacceptable.”
The UN is controlled by dictators, Islamists and anti-semites who use it to feign legitimacy for their bigotry, corruption and insatiable power grabs. Time to withdraw all our funding and leave them to their own devices.
The Declaration of Independence made us free from European powers. Obama wants to surrender our national sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats once again, giving them the power to “redistribute” the fruits of American labor to third-world dictatorships.
A One World Socialist State is no longer just a crazy conspiracy theory…it’s the goal nearly within their reach.
It’s long past time to DEFUND the United Nations entirely of American money, and have them move their headquarters off our shores. They have become the tyrants the purport to prevent.
It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is re-elected. But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly. And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.
In our new book, “Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom,” Eileen and I describe how there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth – not to other Americans – but to other countries. These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress. Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give. They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress — only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.
(Of course, we do not believe that actual black UN helicopters will land in our midst to take over our country. But we use the symbolism to warn that the liberal, bureaucratic elites in the UN, enabled by Obama and Hillary, mean to create global governance to override American self-rule and independence).
Here is what we say in “Black Helicopters” that Obama, Hillary, and the UN are planning for us:
- A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while travelling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN.
- A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).
- A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN.
- Under the Law of the Sea Treaty – up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session – offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world.
- A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world.
- A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.
- These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.
Is there any more fundamental human right than the right to life? How about freedom of speech and petition?
Those who consider themselves “experts” on human rights want to make it an international crime to organize, lobby or speak out for pro-life causes. That’s what they call “human rights”: suppression of free speech and political activism for causes they disagree with.
The recently re-appointed UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, has issued a document calling for governments to criminalise organised opposition to abortion by non-governmental groups such as pro-life lobbyists or even family members. The UN Human Rights Council published its “technical guidance” to address maternal mortality and morbidity in July, to “assist policymakers in improving women’s health and rights.”
The document starts from the abortion industry’s assertion that the best way to reduce maternal mortality is to introduce legalised abortion and reduce legal and other restrictions on abortion. Under the “rights-based” approach to women’s health care, the document says, states are “obliged” to use “maximum available resources” to “protect against interference with sexual and reproductive health rights by third parties by enforcing appropriate laws, policies, regulations and guidelines.”
“There is a strong presumption against any retrogressive measures in relation to sexual and reproductive health,” the document continues.
“States are responsible for exercising due diligence, or acting with a certain standard of care, to ensure that non-governmental actors, including private service providers, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of health-related goods and equipment, as well as community and family members, comply with certain standards.”
Laws and policies that impede access to “sexual and reproductive health services” must be changed, Pillay said. These include laws “criminalizing certain services only needed by women,” laws and policies allowing “conscientious objection of a provider to hinder women’s access to a full range of services,” and “laws imposing third-party authorization for access to services by women and girls”. This list, if the advice were to be taken by the British government, would automatically erase nearly all the remaining legal restrictions on abortion such as the need for two doctors to sign a consent form.
“In other words” said Pat Buckley, Human Rights Council lobbyist for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, “Ms. Pillay is seeking to make effective opposition to abortion provision unlawful on the part of parents; and to criminalize health professionals, administrators and NGOs (like SPUC) who seek to oppose abortion provision – including abortion provision to children under the age of consent.”
It’s long past time to defund the embarrassing sham known as the U.N. All they’re good for anymore is providing a veneer of legitimacy for tyrannical and ant-American/anti-Israel regimes, and siphoning national sovereignty to international bureaucrats.
Christians suffering in the Islamic world must feel so lonely and abandoned, with their brothers and sisters in the free Western world all but ignoring their plight.
Just last month, 50 Nigerian Christians – including women and children – were burned alive when they tried to hide from terrorists in their pastor’s house:
“Fifty of our church members were killed in the church building where they had fled to take refuge. They were killed alongside the wife of the pastor and children,” said the Rev. Dachollom Datiri, vice president of the Church of Christ in Nigeria, in a July 11 interview.
Officials from the church confirmed that over 100 members were killed through various villages in Nigeria, which included Maseh, Ninchah, Kakkuruk, Kuzen, Negon, Pwabiduk, Kai, Ngyo, Kura Falls, Dogo, Kufang, and Ruk.
“Nigeria is truly becoming the new killing field for Christians. Hundreds of Christians have already been brutally murdered – including women and children – by the Boko Haram,” said Open Doors, USA spokesman Jerry Dykst. “The Boko Haram earlier this week said that all Christians need to turn to Islam or ‘they would never know peace again.’ Their goal is make all of Nigeria a country run and dominated by Shariah law.”
This week, radical Muslims murdered 52 more people in Kenya:
Men armed with machetes, bows and arrows, spears and guns attacked a rival village in southeastern Kenya on Wednesday in a dispute over land, killing 52 people, according to Kenyan police.
Found dead at the scene were 31 women, 11 children and six men, many of whom had been hacked to death, or had been barricaded in their huts and burned to death. Four others died at a hospital.
In Pakistan, an 11-year-old Christian girl with Down Syndrome was accused of “blasphemy” after some burned pages of Islamic text were found in her shopping bag (any one want to guess who put them there?).
The next day, angry Pakistani Muslims kidnapped and tortured an 11-year-old Christian boy to death:
The tortured body of an 11 year old Christian boy has been found in a town in Punjab, Pakistan, days after a young Christian girl was arrested on blasphemy charges.
Human rights campaigners condemned the killing of Samuel Yaqoob whose burned and tortured body body was discovered on Eid, the celebration which marks the end of the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan.
His lips and nose had been sliced off, his stomach removed and there was evidence that his legs had been mutilated too.
The boy had been missing since Monday when he left his home in the town’s Christian Colony to visit a local market. His relatives identified his body from a distinctive mark on his forehead.
Yaquub was reported to be an orphan but in local newspaper reports his mother Asia Bibi was quoted denying he had been accused of blasphemy. “We neither received any phone call for ransom nor were we told that Samuel had committed blasphemy,” she said.
It’s a disgusting, demonic, deceptive ideology that reduces people to this level of brutality – even against CHILDREN!
In addition, thousands of Iraqi Christians are fleeing the relentless attacks by jihadists on their homes, churches and families.
Where is the response from this administration, the UN, and human rights groups? Absolute SILENCE. Why? Because the Left considers it “Islamophobia” to condemn acts of violence by radical Muslims, and they must be portrayed as morally equivalent to their victims by the media, which is why they call it “sectarian” or “ethnic violence” instead of it’s TRUE name: mass murder.