The United Nations wants a one-world government in less than twelve years

November 5, 2018 (American Thinker) – In the 1960s, an informed but naïve undergraduate, I was walking across the campus of the University of Pennsylvania with the Chairman of the Chemistry Department, Prof. Charles C. Price. He told me that he was president of the United World Federalists, and asked if I knew what that organization was. When I said that I did not, he replied that they believed in a one-world government that would grow out of the United Nations. I was nonplussed as I had never heard anyone suggest that idea before. To me, the United Nations was a benevolent organization dedicated to pressuring the world community in the direction of peace, and to operating charitable programs to help the struggling, impoverished peoples of the world. I imagined the UN as a kind of United Way on a worldwide scale.

How would Prof. Price's vision of a new world government emerge? Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body. And rights are the mainstay for uplifting human freedom and the dignity of the individual. The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world: the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789).

The word "rights" appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document. The document is literally obsessed with rights, and one must assume they are likewise obsessed with the rights successes as manifested in the United Kingdom, the U.S., and France. However, there are some deviations from the rights usage we are all familiar with. In Article 3, Instead of the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" found in our Declaration of Independence, the UN declares everyone's right to "life, liberty and security of person." Are they implying that security will bring happiness? Or are they implying that happiness is too ephemeral a value, and too Western? Perhaps more mundane survival goals are needed by most of the world.

The works of the law saved no one.
That is NOT its job. And nobody is saying it is. Another strawman.

It’s sad that you seem to think that you’re somehow able to contribute to your own salvation.
A false witness. Are you a god? Can you read others minds and motives? Paul plainly puts faith and works together as a team. You remind me of Saul of Tarsus. You think you are doing a good thing but you are not. You never seem to let an opportunity pass to throw an elbow or kick to Gods Holy Law.
Rev. 22:14 "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city."
And you always bring up Acts 15:12 - 29 which is plainly about Mosaic law instead of the Ten Commandments. Is this conflation ignorance, accidental or intentional? I don't want to be accused of mindreading.

.
The word of Yehova says that righteousness is the path.

Yeshua’s life is our path to righteousness, by believing in what he has told us and demonstrated to us: obedience to Torah. You twist the word. (or the professional liar that you follow twisted the word)

John explained how we follow him, and what we are to do when we fail. Anyone who seeks eternal life by any other means will fail eternally.

Yeshua himself is the inocent lamb that pays the price, but that payment is only effective to the obedient.

He made that crystal clear in Matthew 7:21-23. He was clearly speaking to “Christians” in that passage. He spoke of their man made acts of psuedo-righteousness, following Christian doctrine, falling short.
.

Dear MrEdd....my apologizes....I was traveling, and posting from phone during much of my travel.....and, I somehow overlooked your reply to me.

Here is my reply, in return....

Your reply stated...

In the last four presidential elections, there have been posters on this forum who have directly opposed posters whose primary concern is border security, and attacked them for remaining firm on that.

I am not aware of any posters who made those claims. I guess that in my 10 years of posting, on FR, I somehow have missed said posters and those posts.

The flood of illegals and the purpose behind it has been clear since the Nixon administration.

Yes. On that we can agree.

When some yahoo on this forum insists that voters who vote third part solely over border enforcement “wants Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Obama” or “is a purist” they are and have been by inference insisting that stopping the intended overwhelming of the electorate with third world socialists.

Some of them of course have gotten pretty filthy. They insisted that the real reason border Hawks wouldn't vote for Romney was Mormonism. Yes, there were Freepers who threw the “if you won't vote to have the republican party help erase the border then you are a religious bigot” card.

Again, I must've have missed those posters/posts. I don't recall anyone ever saying those things....especially about the 'erasing the border, or you are a bigot' posts.

We didn't get where we are now with the illegals deciding key races due to vote laws not being enforced without people working to put the breaks on it. But we have had (and still do) people who want something else to the point that they will support globalists with an “R” on the ticket if they are promised a capital gains reduction, of a rollback of some tax or another, or an oil policy they desire. All of those things are nice, but effectively throwing our sovereignty away to get them is a bad idea, and attacking those who oppose throwing our sovereignty away through the importation of socialists has gone on for a long time.

On this, too, we can both agree!!

Do you wish to concede my point now, or shall we start doxing posters who have made exactly the statements I am referring to, and debate whether or not attacking border hawks specifically for being border hawks can be done without becoming an open borders advocate by simple reciprocity?

No need to call anyone out, specifically (I do hope you aren't able to dox posters), we can just refer to specific positions that some may take (as you have so nicely done).

I'll go as many rounds as you want to go.

No, I have no desire to do that. Was just wanting more meat on that bone you through out :-) Appreciate the detailed reply, to my request.

Take care!

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.