UN Chief Ban Ki-moon ‘Congratulates’ Venezuela on Re-Election to Human Rights Council

Cybercast News Service ^ | January 21, 2016 | 4:30 AM EST | Patrick Goodenough

[Olog-hai]

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has "congratulated" Venezuela on winning a new three-year term on the U.N. Human Rights Council, the socialist government reported Wednesday.

Venezuela's mission to the U.N. said Ban offered his congratulations during a meeting Tuesday with Venezuelan ambassador to the HRC Jorge Valero in Geneva, the Swiss city that is home to the U.N.'s top human rights body.

Ban's reported congratulations came despite the fact that the ongoing election onto the HRC of countries with poor human rights records has long outraged human rights advocates and frustrated democratic governments. ...

[Olog-hai]

Hmm. The Venezuelan ambassador to the so-called HRC has almost the same name as the birth name of Eamon de Valera, the infamous Irish president.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

More evidence of the UN’s essential absurdity.
Congratulating Venezuela ? Really ?

[circlecity]

Didn’t Venezuela just declare “emergency” martial law?

[Olog-hai]

Well, what else is a “peace” organization whose charter is a clone of the 1936 USSR constitution to do?

[dfwgator]

Well, what else is a “peace” organization whose charter is a clone of the 1936 USSR constitution to do?

And an organization that had a full-blown Nazi as Secretary General in Kurt Waldheim.

[Retain Mike]

Here is an excerpt from an essay which uses the original UN Human Rights in discussing a place for US involvement in international affairs.

The Second World War had a much different outcome because the United States was the only belligerent that not only survived decimation but prospered during those years. Great material wealth and power allowed Eleanor Roosevelt to put before the San Francisco Conference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the philosophical foundation for the United Nations. In its thirty provisions only two deal with material matters and twenty eight emphasized the intangible attributes of property with which John Locke and James Madison would have been familiar. She brought to the international community the idea of representative governments deriving their responsibilities from the governed. Of course behind this concept was our heritage of Christian faith in which all Americans understood they acted in submission to the Supreme Authority. Based on reaffirmation of dedication to human rights, the UN determined to eliminate the scourge of war and promote justice, freedom, and respect for law. Armed forces would then be used to promote these common interests.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml

United Nation Charter
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml

[Olog-hai]

You’re not going to “eliminate the scourge of war” by planting the seeds of the third world war in the UN itself, via constructing the UN’s charter as a clone of the USSR’s Stalin Constitution.

[dsrtsage]

Was Mugabe unavailable?

[Jan_Sobieski]

I hear that the Islamic State (ISIS) was a close second, but the there were a couple dissenting votes, so they went with Venezuela

[Retain Mike]

If we take the Churchill speech as the beginning of the Cold War, then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents the US putting forth a position in opposition to the Soviet Union.

The 1936 Constitution sounds good, especially beginning at article 118. It gives one a warm feeling like peeing in your pants, but of course Stalin never let the people change their underwear. The intellectuals of the west never had to live under it and therefore revered it, even though the provisions were never followed. How tragic U.S. politicians behaved so inconsistently at the UN that eventually even the Libya of Muammar Gaddafi could reside on the Human Rights Council.

[Dick Bachert]

Oh, be still my heart!

>

Waaaaayyyy back in 1984, WGST-AM radio in Atlanta (not exactly a hotbed of radical, conservative Americanist philosophy) polled its listening audience and asked the question “Is the United Nations doing a good job?” 81% responded “NO!”

So, DECADES later, why the hell are we still involved with one of the most corrupt and liberty-threatening organizations ever invented?

Sounds like a question for YOUR congress critter’s next TOWN HALL MEETING to me.

Some essential history if you are to fully grasp the rot – and the plot -- at the core of this thoroughly corrupt gaggle of over-educated morons:

ORIGINS OF THE UN, PART 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAzl21AfnZU

ORIGINS OF THE UN, PART 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0qV2OM8ajQ

ORIGINS OF THE UN, PART 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrkshIXYiPs

[Olog-hai]

Take note that all the “rights” listed in the USSR constitution (including the successor from 1977) are “positive”, i.e. given by the government (and taken away/nullified at will), rather than, as Obama disdainfully called the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, “negative liberties” that say what the government can never do to you because of those rights being inherent to everyone living.

The UDHR is not in opposition to the USSR. The slippery slope starts at its Article 6. It also recognizes “dissolution” of marriage (divorce) as a right in Article 16, and is not clear that the family is one man married to one woman but uses ambiguous language. Article 19 fails to say “freedom of speech”. Article 23 reads just like the USSR’s “right to work” constitutional articles, including “equal pay for equal work” et al. Article 26 also stipulates free and compulsory education for children, which is stipulated in the Tenth Plank of Communism in Chapter 2 of the Manifesto.

The behavior of US politicians at the UN (after all, it was leftist US politicians that set it up) is not inconsistent with the structure of the UN.

[Retain Mike]

The point you make that it is a list of rights given by the government to the people is really important. Thank you. Article 6 is a fatal departure from our Constitution in that property is not individually owned. I quote from this essay again.

Finally with these and other precedents we come to the founding of our country. Now human rights get synthesized into property as defined most prominently by John Locke and James Madison. Individual property is first of all sourced internally in self protection, opinion, religion, communications, use of abilities to labor physically and mentally, and in conscience. Only by application of these inherent rights does one come to the external and more traditional definition involving those things which man was to have dominion over ever since the Creation.