J
JimG
Guest
It’s a full length program from C-Span, an interview with Ami Horowitz, produce of UN Me, but worth watching.
c-spanvideo.org/program/307569-1
c-spanvideo.org/program/307569-1
- Status
N
nordskoven
Guest
Dislike the U.N.? Uh, are repulsed by U.N.'s passive acceptance of genocide in, say, Rwanda? The U.N. is like FEMA, and should be judged by what they do, not what they say they do. The U.N. has apparently been emplacing their Agenda 21 depopulation “sustainable economy” language in various United States towns and counties. With Glen Beck’s blowing the whistle and release of the fact-based fiction, Agenda 21, the U.N. has ingloriously pulled various Agenda 21 pdf documents. Damned by what they propose, the U.N. has gone underground. But pay up, America. Those diplomats dragging drugs over in their diplomatic pouches need their overhead covered. Control freaks is as control freaks does. The U.N.'s former proposal of a world food authority would have given these enemies of God and man a choke point to reward or punish compliance with U.N. dictates. No thanks. May we know the Way, Truth & Life and be free.
**Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all that is hidden. May your purity of intent that is your Immaculate Heart bring the cleansing all hearts in the fiery abyss of love which is your Son, Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. Love conquers all. Reign and rule, Most High God, and deliver us from one-world controllers. AMEN **
**Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all that is hidden. May your purity of intent that is your Immaculate Heart bring the cleansing all hearts in the fiery abyss of love which is your Son, Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. Love conquers all. Reign and rule, Most High God, and deliver us from one-world controllers. AMEN **
K
Kal2012
Guest
- Americans, inherently, distrust the centralization of power.
- Americans can’t elect their representative and, honestly, really don’t have specific reasons to latch onto as for why we are in this organization.
Americans like having a say in everything. We don’t want to pay into an organization where we have no say. And the person talking for us don’t necessarily represent us - they are a political hack promoting a political agenda, regardless of party. Not all Americans feel represented by the political party in power. There isn’t trust that they’ll do the right thing for everyone, but only look out for themselves.
- A lot of the policies promoted really just go against American sovereignty and the right to control our local affairs.
After all, we didn’t elect them or nominate them or have anything to do with the process.
- Looking at the UN, they are just corrupt and very unaccountable. American like transparency and look down on organizations run like the mob or 3rd world dictatorships - where nobody outside their little clique gets a say.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
As a person who was taught to love all of God’s people and be concerned about them, who views the UN as much more a source of good than corruption, I’m terribly ashamed of this anti-UN sentiment in America, and I was glad to see someone writing about this:
“Globophobia: America Against the World”
nationofchange.org/globophobia-america-against-world-1355235178
December 4, 2012. Mark this date on your calendar. The somber day the U.S. Senate voted down the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities…
UN haters have [also] saved us from:…
#1 The Kyoto Protocol…
#3 The World Court and International Law…
#4 The Law of the Sea Treaty…
#6 The International Criminal Court…
#7 The Convention on the Rights of the Child…
#8 The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty…
It’s all very very shameful. These are all good things to do, and despite naysayers there is nothing wrong with them. As far as I know the Church supports them.
I understand there are plenty of conspiracy theories out there about how evil the UN is, and how each of these agreements are totally evil, but to be frank we cannot expect the UN to be perfect or all-powerful like God to do good and halt evil in the world, esp when it really doesn’t have hardly any power at all.
It’s very sad that we as a nation have decided to annihilate most (perhaps all) of life on earth by not cooperating with the world community in reducing our greenhouse gases. As the Papua New Guinea delegate to the 2007 climate talks in Bali told the U.S., “either lead, follow or get out of the way.”
“Globophobia: America Against the World”
nationofchange.org/globophobia-america-against-world-1355235178
December 4, 2012. Mark this date on your calendar. The somber day the U.S. Senate voted down the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities…
UN haters have [also] saved us from:…
#1 The Kyoto Protocol…
#3 The World Court and International Law…
#4 The Law of the Sea Treaty…
#6 The International Criminal Court…
#7 The Convention on the Rights of the Child…
#8 The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty…
It’s all very very shameful. These are all good things to do, and despite naysayers there is nothing wrong with them. As far as I know the Church supports them.
I understand there are plenty of conspiracy theories out there about how evil the UN is, and how each of these agreements are totally evil, but to be frank we cannot expect the UN to be perfect or all-powerful like God to do good and halt evil in the world, esp when it really doesn’t have hardly any power at all.
It’s very sad that we as a nation have decided to annihilate most (perhaps all) of life on earth by not cooperating with the world community in reducing our greenhouse gases. As the Papua New Guinea delegate to the 2007 climate talks in Bali told the U.S., “either lead, follow or get out of the way.”
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
What cooperation are you talking about in regards to greenhouse gases? Most of the world was placed in the “we aren’t going to force you to curb your pollution rate” category. All Kyoto would do would be to create an economic shift as companies moved their operations out of the “we’re going to force you to not pollute” countries to the “you’re still developing (China) so do whatever” countries. Telling me smoking is wrong and that smoking in the front room is not allowed (psst but it’s allowed in the back room) isn’t going to solve the second hand smoke problem for the building. It’s just going to make the front room smell a little less smokey.
E
Erich
Guest
There’s plenty wrong with LOST.
Just as common sense argues for using bilateral or, at most, five-party forums to establish arrangements governing the Arctic Ocean’s resources (for example), it strongly militates against the United States allowing itself to be bound to a treaty whose core provisions (i.e., those governing limitations on territorial claims and mandatory dispute resolutions) are already being serially violated by Communist China. Although Beijing ratified the LOST pact in June 1996, it continues to issue maps claiming the entire South China Sea. That claim is, among other things, incompatible with the treaty’s rules. It’s no wonder Beijing notified the U.N. in 2006 that it would not accept international arbitration of its sovereignty claims.
(BTW, China is also a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but remains a notorious nuclear proliferator, and it is a member of the World Trade Organization, yet brazenly disregards its trade obligations. And U.N. sanctions? China openly violates those too, even though it is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.)
LOST, if ratified, would have a deleterious impact on our sovereignty, economic interests and potentially even our national security.
E
Erich
Guest
Plenty wrong with that one, too. From this link:
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:
- It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
- Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
- Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.
- The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
- The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
- The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
- Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
- A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
- Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
- Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.
- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
- The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
- A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
- According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
- Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29” of the treaty.
- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
- A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I am exceedingly ashamed that the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If we had, and if we had earnestly striven to reduce our greenhouse gases, then I’m pretty sure other nations around the world would have put in more effort to do so. The world still looks to the U.S. for leadership.
RE India and China (and other poor nations like Mali) not being part of the original protocol is completely correct. (1) historically they have contributed very little GHG; (2) per capital China is still way below the U.S. emissions, and Indians are way way below; (3) many villages in India are still not electrified, and I think it despicable to take away the single 40 watt tube light and fan the typical Indian village family has. Don’t their children also deserve to be able to study at night so they can hope to go to college like us Americans? Don’t they deserve to have one fan?
The vast majority of Indians do not have refrigerators, A/C, or other applicances, and most still travel by bicycle or public transportation, except many are buying TVs now, and mopeds are becoming popular.
Considering that we in the U.S. could save a tremendous amount of money by reducing our GHGs some 50 or 75%, without lowering living standards or productivity (we’ve lowered ours below our 1990 levels by more than 60%, saving us many $1000s, while increasing our living standards), makes our selfish, pro-death (esp to the poor of the world) stance all the more crazy.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Flag of convenience is a term used to describe the practice of corporations in one country registering their ships in another country in order to get around taxes and regulations (including pollution regulations). Had Kyoto been approved, we’d see corporations doing similar in order to get around Kyoto. An example of this “shifting where they pollute” is the article a couple of months ago about British green energy windmills being built in unregulated China. That’s not reducing pollution, that’s making sure the smokers only smoke in the backroom (referencing my analogy from my previous comment).
As to the poor villager in India, if the people who put together Kyoto didn’t care enough to include a series of programs to assist developing countries in developing a “greener” and faster method in developing their energy infrastructure and industry why should I? If reducing global pollution is the purpose of Kyoto, than would it not be more logical to have such programs instead of letting said underdeveloped countries to continue to pollute at unregulated levels and to continue to do so until some unknown date in the future when they are considered developed?
Lastly, if your main concern is pollution isn’t the fact that most Indians use non-polluting (walking or bicycle) or less polluting (Mass transit) means of transport a good thing? I’m pretty sure there has been massive campaigns in at least the US to get citizens to engage in similar behavior.
E
Erich
Guest
We’ve done measurably better at reducing our greenhouse gasses, but other nations – China in particular – haven’t put in comparable effort.
In 2008, China was single-handedly responsible for 23.53% of the world’s CO2 emissions. By 2011, this percentage grew to 29.06%
In 2008, the USA was responsible for 18.27% of the world’s CO2 emissions. By 2011 this percentage fell to 16.23%
This trend is only going to continue.
No one knows how many cars there are in America. Many are not registered and are stored, in salvage yards, and some just sitting idle. But, according to WikiAnswers, there are approximately 275 million registered vehicles on the road today. That figure includes all types of vehicles. Approximately 16.7 million new vehicles are sold annually.
According to Wikipedia, the estimated population of the U.S. is roughly 312,000,000. Of course, not everyone owns a vehicle (or is even of driving age), but 0.81 vehicles per person is a pretty high percentage.
Compare that with this:
and this:
Not only does China have a middle class bigger than our entire population… it has only 0.17 vehicles per person.
You can’t repeal the law of supply and demand!
B
Bill_7154
Guest
We don’t like the US for the same reason that Bostonian’s don’t like the Yankee’s.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
B
Bill_7154
Guest
We don’t like the UN for the same reason that Bostonian’s don’t like the Yankee’s.You don’t like the US?
Do you mean the US or the UN?
S
sandomenico
Guest
I think the second half of YoungIreland’s question far more interesting than the first.
Yes, it appears that the Church is not against a world government; but then again, the Church is not necessarily against any form of government, unless that form is inherently unjust. The Church condemns socialism and other tyrannies for this reason. The question then becomes: is it possible to have a just “world government”?
Yes, again–but only in theory. I stress that point very strongly: only in theory. In practice, such a form of government invites tyranny, because such a government has been the dream of every petty dictator from Herod to Stalin, even though they could not realize it in their lifetimes.
I think it has been well-established on this thread that the U.N. abuses what little power it has now. How would such an organization act if it were given complete and final power over all the countries on the globe?
Freedom of speech, of religion, the right to bear arms, the right of a man to his possessions, to his life–all of these will be lost, because they are all under attack now by this bureaucratic body of would-be tyrants. And the UN is leading all these attacks to ensure “the greatest good for the greatest number” so they say. Well, it appears that the greatest good is ultimate power and the greatest number to possess it will be, in the long run: one.
“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton
Only one man can rule the entire earth justly; and His rule will last throughout all ages when He comes again. VIVA CHRISTO REY!
God love you,
sandomenico
Yes, it appears that the Church is not against a world government; but then again, the Church is not necessarily against any form of government, unless that form is inherently unjust. The Church condemns socialism and other tyrannies for this reason. The question then becomes: is it possible to have a just “world government”?
Yes, again–but only in theory. I stress that point very strongly: only in theory. In practice, such a form of government invites tyranny, because such a government has been the dream of every petty dictator from Herod to Stalin, even though they could not realize it in their lifetimes.
I think it has been well-established on this thread that the U.N. abuses what little power it has now. How would such an organization act if it were given complete and final power over all the countries on the globe?
Freedom of speech, of religion, the right to bear arms, the right of a man to his possessions, to his life–all of these will be lost, because they are all under attack now by this bureaucratic body of would-be tyrants. And the UN is leading all these attacks to ensure “the greatest good for the greatest number” so they say. Well, it appears that the greatest good is ultimate power and the greatest number to possess it will be, in the long run: one.
“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton
Only one man can rule the entire earth justly; and His rule will last throughout all ages when He comes again. VIVA CHRISTO REY!
God love you,
sandomenico
E
epan
Guest
Errp. Why in the world would the Catholic Church condemn socialism? Obviously Marxism. But how would socialism be considered unjust?
S
sandomenico
Guest
I will point you to Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum as the Church document to explain her own position.
As for my explanation: Marxism is a form of socialism, not socialism a form of Marxism. The idea of communal property has been around since the ancient Greeks; in fact, the Spartans lived by it. The principles of modern socialism were born in the French Revolution and carried through the mid-19th century revolutions in the cities. Marx didn’t write his manifesto until 1848.
Socialism is inherently unjust because it denies a man his right to private property: wages for labor and things bought with those honest wages – a home, car, food, etc… (That, of course, leaves out the simple fact that it is mathematically impossible to distribute the world’s wealth to the world’s equal benefit).
Also it is anti-family; in fact, it is against any form of authority except its own. Marx describes socialism as a tyrannous stage in which the proletariat systematically destroys the bourgeoisie, making way for the “proletariat paradise” of communism: “a classless, stateless society.”
Finally, it seeks to make a heaven on earth – a project as futile as the tower of Babel – denies and defies God; and has wreaked more bloodshed on the earth through wars, revolutions, abortion, extortion, and more means than a man could count.
God love you,
sandomenico
P.S. I think Archbishop Fulton Sheen also talks on the evils of communism in his excellent series “Life is Worth Living”.
E
epan
Guest
There seems to be some confusion, maybe it’s mine, between communism and the Soviet and Chinese experiments, and some of its other forms.
I’ll read Leo XIII’s opinion. But, I don’t really see how monastery life is sinful. I don’t see how a village in rural south east asia which shares the means of production, labor and distribution in the rice field is sinful. These are valid examples of alternatives to capitalism, which do not deny the dignity of man (or woman). Indeed, these examples are more likely to take care of the elderly or disabled in their community, than naked capitalism will.
I also think that, to his credit, Benedict XVI has spoken out to call for more equitable distribution of wealth, and for adequate health care for all.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
? Maybe because the Holy Father hates Germany. Or public-funded roads? Or the post office?
I myself am beginning to hate the U.S. Post Office – since 2 very important and valuable pieces of mail to us have gone missing over the past month. I think there’s a thief in our local the post office. So bah humbug on the PO.
As for the UN, I think the real reason some in the U.S. hate it so much, is bec it is a threat to our bullying power around the world – i.e., we want to be king of the world and make everyone give us their resources so we can continue our gluttonous party until all the world is destroyed and dead.
J
JimG
Guest
Even if the U.N. were not thoroughly corrupt in its practices–paying people to play on the beach, disregarding genocide, ignoring its own alledged values, it would still be a questionable organization. It is rather like an overarching council of neighborhood watch groups in which half the members are criminal gangs, neighborhood gangs, crips and bloods, professional theives and murderers, drug lords, but who all have an equal vote with normal neighborhood watch groups. It doesn’t work, and never will until they start throwing out some member states.
- Status