Anti-American Globalists “Defend” U.S. at the UN?
By Ben Johnson
From the moment Barack Obama joined the United Nations Human Rights Council, observers knew an international humiliation was coming. Last Friday, the rogue nations of the world and the left-wing dregs of American society provided it before an international audience in Geneva. However, perhaps most disturbing, the team President Obama sent to “defend” the United States themselves accuse the United States of representing an “axis of disobedience” guilty of “illegal actions,” while claiming the Khmer Rouge followed “a policy of restraint.”
READ MORE:
http://floydreports.com/anti-american-globalists-defend-u-s-at-the-un/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=9d71fe211e-EO_11_09_201011_9_2010&utm_medium=email
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Obama administration issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on alleged human rights abuses by the United States
The World Upside Down
By Christian Whiton, Published September 06, 2010
FoxNews.com
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on alleged human rights abuses by the United States. In what marks an unprecedented act of elitism and arrogance by the political class in Washington, our own federal government has complained to a corrupt international organization about the purported sins of Americans.
In so doing, the White House attempted to redefine human rights in the socialist model and augment its liberal domestic agenda at home. It also set back the cause of those seeking freedom abroad.
The Obama report was issued to the fundamentally flawed U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Council came into existence in 2006 after its predecessor was criticized broadly for tolerating leadership from dictatorships among its members and doing little to advance individual rights globally. In classic U.N. fashion however, the reform led to something even worse.
Current Council members include systematic human rights abusers like China, Libya, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Council has issued proclamations on things like climate change and environmental protection, but done little about regimes that routinely suppress the unalienable rights of their citizens.
It is to this deeply flawed organization that President Obama has criticized America. It seems the White House viewed this as an opportunity to advance its domestic agenda.
For example, the Obama administration criticized Arizona’s new illegal immigrant law in the report. In effect, our own federal government has complained to foreigners that Americans who favor controlling the border are would-be human rights violators. How it would be a human rights violation for the U.S. to try to control its border—as does every advanced nation—is left unexplained. But regardless of what one thinks of the Arizona law, Americans should be concerned that the federal government is criticizing before the corrupt U.N. the states and people it is supposed to represent.
The White House is also attempting to redefine human rights. In the American context, human rights constrain the power of government to control the individual. They are limitations on the government’s ability to censor us, govern us without our consent, prevent us from practicing religion as we see fit, take our property, take our arms, etc.
Socialists on the other hand reject these individual rights and talk instead about communal rights, group rights and rights to material goods and services. This basically involves hijacking the human rights moniker and using it to justify a larger government that redistributes wealth.
By bragging about Obamacare in its report to the U.N., and criticizing the U.S. for deficiencies in housing, jobs and healthcare for minorities, the Obama administration has essentially adopted this collectivist view of human rights.
Setting aside the principle in this radical shift, there is there question of its pragmatism. The White House may think that if we criticize ourselves, governments like those in China and Iran will also become self-critical and stop abusing their citizens. However, there is no historical instance where this has happened. Instead, undemocratic governments and those who struggle against them see this as U.S. weakness and diffidence.
When the U.S. itself gives in to moral equivalence, and sees itself as no different than the world’s tyrannies and thugocracies, freedom fighters lose their strongest ally in the world. Our adversaries are emboldened.
In the past, Congress would have something to say about this conduct. Not so with our political class in Washington, including on Capitol Hill. The current Congress has shown itself entirely unwilling to cross the Obama White House on any foreign policy issue of substance.
A better course would be for the United States to return to its bipartisan heritage of standing unequivocally for the rights of the individual—both at home and abroad. We should reject the socialist attempt to replace real human rights that limit government power with group rights meant to create unlimited government that redistributes wealth.
In addition, we ought to view this episode as one more reason the U.N. Human Rights Council is hopelessly flawed and the U.N. itself is counterproductive to the cause of freedom.
We should quit the Council and also deduct the amount of funds used for it from our annual dues payment to the UN. The U.S. should stand again for the advance of freedom globally, and do so by working with other pro-freedom governments, not the corrupt United Nations.
Christian Whiton is a former State Department senior advisor. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/06/christian-whiton-united-nations-human-rights-council-obama-america/
By Christian Whiton, Published September 06, 2010
FoxNews.com
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on alleged human rights abuses by the United States. In what marks an unprecedented act of elitism and arrogance by the political class in Washington, our own federal government has complained to a corrupt international organization about the purported sins of Americans.
In so doing, the White House attempted to redefine human rights in the socialist model and augment its liberal domestic agenda at home. It also set back the cause of those seeking freedom abroad.
The Obama report was issued to the fundamentally flawed U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Council came into existence in 2006 after its predecessor was criticized broadly for tolerating leadership from dictatorships among its members and doing little to advance individual rights globally. In classic U.N. fashion however, the reform led to something even worse.
Current Council members include systematic human rights abusers like China, Libya, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Council has issued proclamations on things like climate change and environmental protection, but done little about regimes that routinely suppress the unalienable rights of their citizens.
It is to this deeply flawed organization that President Obama has criticized America. It seems the White House viewed this as an opportunity to advance its domestic agenda.
For example, the Obama administration criticized Arizona’s new illegal immigrant law in the report. In effect, our own federal government has complained to foreigners that Americans who favor controlling the border are would-be human rights violators. How it would be a human rights violation for the U.S. to try to control its border—as does every advanced nation—is left unexplained. But regardless of what one thinks of the Arizona law, Americans should be concerned that the federal government is criticizing before the corrupt U.N. the states and people it is supposed to represent.
The White House is also attempting to redefine human rights. In the American context, human rights constrain the power of government to control the individual. They are limitations on the government’s ability to censor us, govern us without our consent, prevent us from practicing religion as we see fit, take our property, take our arms, etc.
Socialists on the other hand reject these individual rights and talk instead about communal rights, group rights and rights to material goods and services. This basically involves hijacking the human rights moniker and using it to justify a larger government that redistributes wealth.
By bragging about Obamacare in its report to the U.N., and criticizing the U.S. for deficiencies in housing, jobs and healthcare for minorities, the Obama administration has essentially adopted this collectivist view of human rights.
Setting aside the principle in this radical shift, there is there question of its pragmatism. The White House may think that if we criticize ourselves, governments like those in China and Iran will also become self-critical and stop abusing their citizens. However, there is no historical instance where this has happened. Instead, undemocratic governments and those who struggle against them see this as U.S. weakness and diffidence.
When the U.S. itself gives in to moral equivalence, and sees itself as no different than the world’s tyrannies and thugocracies, freedom fighters lose their strongest ally in the world. Our adversaries are emboldened.
In the past, Congress would have something to say about this conduct. Not so with our political class in Washington, including on Capitol Hill. The current Congress has shown itself entirely unwilling to cross the Obama White House on any foreign policy issue of substance.
A better course would be for the United States to return to its bipartisan heritage of standing unequivocally for the rights of the individual—both at home and abroad. We should reject the socialist attempt to replace real human rights that limit government power with group rights meant to create unlimited government that redistributes wealth.
In addition, we ought to view this episode as one more reason the U.N. Human Rights Council is hopelessly flawed and the U.N. itself is counterproductive to the cause of freedom.
We should quit the Council and also deduct the amount of funds used for it from our annual dues payment to the UN. The U.S. should stand again for the advance of freedom globally, and do so by working with other pro-freedom governments, not the corrupt United Nations.
Christian Whiton is a former State Department senior advisor. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/06/christian-whiton-united-nations-human-rights-council-obama-america/
Thursday, September 2, 2010
AMERICAN THINKER
U.N. report clearly not treason, just treasonous
September 02, 2010
Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Apparently the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department consider our republican form of government a human rights deficiency.
As Carol Taber wrote, "Last week, the Obama State Department submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the supposed human rights violations taking place in the United States." Michelle Malkin does her usual great job as well blasting the report.
Arizona's immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, is referenced in the report's ugly circumstances:
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, justifiably upset, wrote a letter calling the report "unconstitutional" and "downright offensive."
Enacted lawfully by the State of Arizona, with provisions consistent with a federal statute, currently in a court challenge (opposed 2 -1 by Americans) by the Obama administration initiated before the law was implemented, and, of course, having violated no human rights, S.B. 1070 is a typical product of our American republican form of government, enacted at law and being litigated in our judicial system.
To air its displeasure with S.B. 1070 by referencing it in a human rights violation report to the U.N. clearly gives our foreign detractors and enemies comfort. This is a not-so-subtle attack on our republican form of government, the majority of Americans who support the law, and the majority of Americans who oppose the Obama administration's litigation against it.
It is treasonous, albeit, not an act of treason.
September 02, 2010
Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Apparently the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department consider our republican form of government a human rights deficiency.
As Carol Taber wrote, "Last week, the Obama State Department submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the supposed human rights violations taking place in the United States." Michelle Malkin does her usual great job as well blasting the report.
Arizona's immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, is referenced in the report's ugly circumstances:
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, justifiably upset, wrote a letter calling the report "unconstitutional" and "downright offensive."
Enacted lawfully by the State of Arizona, with provisions consistent with a federal statute, currently in a court challenge (opposed 2 -1 by Americans) by the Obama administration initiated before the law was implemented, and, of course, having violated no human rights, S.B. 1070 is a typical product of our American republican form of government, enacted at law and being litigated in our judicial system.
To air its displeasure with S.B. 1070 by referencing it in a human rights violation report to the U.N. clearly gives our foreign detractors and enemies comfort. This is a not-so-subtle attack on our republican form of government, the majority of Americans who support the law, and the majority of Americans who oppose the Obama administration's litigation against it.
It is treasonous, albeit, not an act of treason.
Monday, August 30, 2010
SPEAK UP!
Endowed With Inalienable Rights . . . By Whom?
The State Department has submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in conjunction with something called the Universal Periodic Review. The report is the federal government’s assessment of how the country is doing on the human rights front.
The very first line of the report states: “The story of the United States of America is one guided by universal values shared the world over–that all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.” Perhaps I’m being too picky or hypersensitive, but I couldn’t help but ask upon reading that sentence, “Would it have killed you to say that all are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?” After, the Declaration of Independence (to which the report is plainly alluding) uses that language.
More substantively . . . the notion that these are “universal values shared the world over” is simply false. I devoutly wish it were true that these values are “universal” and “shared the world over.” But the evidence — including every day’s news — suggests otherwise. To be sure, it is undeniable that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights — even if governments do not respect those rights or acknowledge their Source.
Something else that stuck in my craw: the report implies that the U.S. doesn’t adequately respect “freedom of association” because Congress has not yet passed so-called “card check” legislation favored by many big labor unions, but says not a word about the Supreme Court’s refusal to protect (in CLS v. Martinez) a real right of free association.
And then there’s the report’s embrace of the homosexual legal agenda. The report suggests that the unwillingness of the people in most states to redefine marriage is an American betrayal of “human rights.” Implicitly condemning the vast majority of Americans (those who embrace the traditional definition of marriage) as complicit in an alleged ”human rights” violation is truly beyond the pale.
But I am quite certain that genuine violators of human rights will be so impressed by the U.S.’s self-flagellation that they will immediately cease their oppressive practices. Right.
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/uncategorized/endowed-with-inalienable-rights-by-whom/
The State Department has submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in conjunction with something called the Universal Periodic Review. The report is the federal government’s assessment of how the country is doing on the human rights front.
The very first line of the report states: “The story of the United States of America is one guided by universal values shared the world over–that all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.” Perhaps I’m being too picky or hypersensitive, but I couldn’t help but ask upon reading that sentence, “Would it have killed you to say that all are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?” After, the Declaration of Independence (to which the report is plainly alluding) uses that language.
More substantively . . . the notion that these are “universal values shared the world over” is simply false. I devoutly wish it were true that these values are “universal” and “shared the world over.” But the evidence — including every day’s news — suggests otherwise. To be sure, it is undeniable that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights — even if governments do not respect those rights or acknowledge their Source.
Something else that stuck in my craw: the report implies that the U.S. doesn’t adequately respect “freedom of association” because Congress has not yet passed so-called “card check” legislation favored by many big labor unions, but says not a word about the Supreme Court’s refusal to protect (in CLS v. Martinez) a real right of free association.
And then there’s the report’s embrace of the homosexual legal agenda. The report suggests that the unwillingness of the people in most states to redefine marriage is an American betrayal of “human rights.” Implicitly condemning the vast majority of Americans (those who embrace the traditional definition of marriage) as complicit in an alleged ”human rights” violation is truly beyond the pale.
But I am quite certain that genuine violators of human rights will be so impressed by the U.S.’s self-flagellation that they will immediately cease their oppressive practices. Right.
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/uncategorized/endowed-with-inalienable-rights-by-whom/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
