Don't believe me? Whatch what happens to McMainiac as he attempts to become president.
Even many brain dead Democrats will balk at that one.
Build their gallows gallows high
Posted on 08/23/2005 9:22:32 AM PDT by knighthawk
In less than a month's time -- Sept. 16 and 17 -- the world's great and good will be gathering at the United Nations in Manhattan for what is officially called the High Level Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. This meeting, attended by the heads of government of most countries, including the major powers, has become a regular event in recent years, but one of ceremonial importance rather than of substance.
This year it will be very significant indeed. For the plenary session will almost certainly pass an obscure document, now circulating in draft form among U.N. delegations, that calls on the assembled governments to reaffirm their support for the U.N.'s Millenium Declaration Goals and the other declarations of U.N. conferences over the last 30 years. It will ask them to support the achievement of these goals in a co-ordinated and integrated manner, to renew their commitment to . . .
Falling asleep already, are you? Well, that is precisely the intention of those who composed these anodyne phrases. When bureaucrats seize power, they do it not with swords but with chloroform. And this document is a power grab by people of whom you have never heard, the officials of the U.N. Secretariat, working in tandem with the diplomats of those countries and international organizations that would like to expand the power of the U.N. and its various agencies.
Its main thrust is to extend the U.N.'s power directly into countries and over the lives of citizens, corporations and private bodies. Most of the language used is mildly benevolent in tone. For instance: "We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and cannot be enjoyed without each other." Sounds nice, doesn't it? Of course, it's not true. China today is enjoying economic development of almost unprecedented rapidity under a government that has only a limited regard for such human rights as free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.
More dangerous than platitudes are commitments, since the governments signing onto them often have only the vaguest notion of what they imply. Now there are 158 provisions in this document, some of which contain 10 or 12 commitments. So the four commitments that follow offer merely a taste of a truly gargantuan meal. Still, here goes:
1. The section on the environment commits governments to promoting something called "sustainable consumption." Consumption is your standard of living. If that commitment is not mere flapdoodle, it means that a government that endorses it will limit its citizens' standard of living in line with the U.N.'s view of its environmental sustainability. And we all know from other pronouncements that the U.N. and its agencies consider U.S. consumption to be unsustainable.
2. The same section commits governments to undertake "concerted global action" to meet their commitments and obligations under the Kyoto protocol. Well, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto some years ago -- and earlier this year it rejected Sen. John McCain's legislation that would have introduced Kyoto-style targets and penalties. So which body and set of rules are to govern Americans -- the U.S. Congress and the laws it passes? Or the U.N. and its declarations?
3. The section on human rights calls for "equal participation and representation of men and women in government decision-making bodies." Again, a very nice sentiment but one with a problem. To implement it as the U.N. expects, governments would have to nominate members of Congress. In democracies, however, it is voters rather than governments who choose their representatives -- and they are statistically unlikely to choose a cross section of the population.
4. And at different points the U.N. document calls on governments to accept and implement treaties such as the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty and that establishing the International Criminal Court that the U.S. government, Congress and the administration, has rejected.
What harm is there in signing onto to these desirable outcomes even if we believe that they are either unobtainable or very distant? As scholars like John Fonte of the Hudson Institute have shown, there is very considerable potential harm. These treaties and declarations include enforcement mechanisms such as "monitoring" bodies. Sovereign democratic nations such as Canada have had to host delegations from the U.N. investigating whether their budgetary cuts in welfare violate some commitment they made on welfare rights.
Worse, these commitments change when judges interpret the treaties in a way no one would have predicted when they were signed. A topical example: the British government is currently trying to deport terrorist suspects it considers a danger to the public, but the courts maintain that such deportations are contrary to Britain's signature on the European Declaration of Human Rights.
In other words, the most sensitive and vital political questions are removed from democratic parliaments and the voters and handed over to an international committee nominated by foreign and often despotic regimes.
Yet the U.S. government is under enormous pressure to endorse this catalogue of potential interventions -- not from despots but from its closest democratic friends. The European Union is strongly in favor of transferring power from nation-states to transnational bodies because it is itself a transnational body -- and sees itself as the harbinger of a new sort of transnational political order superior to sovereign nations. And the presidency of the EU is held by Tony Blair, the president's friend and an extreme devotee of "muscular multilateralism."
Blair's pressure is likely to be augmented, moreover, by "realists" in the Bush administration who will argue that opposing the U.N. document is pointless. It will annoy our allies, alienate the international community, and divide America -- all to stop a document that is at best meaningless and at worst utopian.
Such diplomatic trade-offs must sometimes be made. Unfortunately, they never stop with the first one. Some years in the future, when a U.N. committee wants to hold us to our word, or a U.S. court cites the U.N. declaration to overturn domestic law, the same "realists" will argue that fighting this interference is not worth alienating our allies, losing a U.N. vote, or sacrificing some other matter the State Department then thinks vital.
The time to halt this diplomatic rake's progress is now -- and to do so on the principle that Americans are a self-governing people. If Blair is prepared to surrender Britain's democratic sovereignty to a European government or a U.N. committee, that is a matter for him and the British people. American democracy needs no external examiners.
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
I hope Bush has the balls to tell the UN where to shove it.
Get us and mainly our money out of the UN.
ON, please
Variant(s): also sovran
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Middle French, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin superanus, from Latin super over, above -- more at OVER
1 a : superlative in quality : EXCELLENT b : of the most exalted kind : SUPREME c : having generalized curative powers d : of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATED e : having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT
2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT
3 : relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a sovereign
synonym see FREE
- sov·er·eign·ly adverb
Source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Me too, but I don't think he'll do anything. We are getting "sustainable development" now from the local planners via HUD via the UN. Lets not forget the UN Agenda 21 protocol that is being adopted nationwide.
We've got to stand up to these UN observers and let our local politicians know they will be voted out of office for even allowing them in the meetings.
ON, unfortunately. They reallly want to sneak in that bit of nastiness, don't they? Just D*mn.
Don't believe me? Whatch what happens to McMainiac as he attempts to become president.
Even many brain dead Democrats will balk at that one.
Build their gallows gallows high
http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20050801/cosman.shtml
The ultimate purpose of Agenda 21's Sustainable Development is to create one classless global society, living under global budgets in a series of human settlements in harmony with the environment. There, all people, all generations, and all species are equal. There, no disparities exist in the grand global biodiversity. Economically, there are no rich and no poor. Ecologically, human life is not predator against other life forms. Intellectually, mind and reason are not more powerful than urge and appetite. Politically, calm, quiet, dull stasis replaces rapacious, creative progress.
What a crock!
Absolutely!
Read this; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466663/posts
DITTO, DITTO, DITTO
I'm glad we aren't waiting around for Senate Obstructionists to finally approve a UN Ambassador.
So, if I read this right, the UN is picking up from where Joe Stalin left off?
Thanks for the ping.
3. The section on human rights calls for "equal participation and representation of men and women in government decision-making bodies." Again, a very nice sentiment but one with a problem. To implement it as the U.N. expects, governments would have to nominate members of Congress. In democracies, however, it is voters rather than governments who choose their representatives -- and they are statistically unlikely to choose a cross section of the population.In other words, the most sensitive and vital political questions are removed from democratic parliaments and the voters and handed over to an international committee nominated by foreign and often despotic regimes.
If the European Union wants to surrender to the UN so be it, but GW must oppose to the UN document. We don't need foreign committees to govern ourselves.
Too bad its well underway in the United States, and it is in every "free trade" agreement we sign with other "member states".
The Iraqi constitution is a prime example of a UN government.
No American should be dying in a foreign country in order to implement the UN's version of a governmental system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.