- Thread starter
- #21
So how about a link to these UN convention documents and quotes from them, with an explanation of what evils the quoted parts are doing to us?
Or is that asking too much and let's just post death figures in some weird and wildly bizarre paroxysmal attack and call it good.
I eagerly await to learn what the WWI death toll has to do with the Rights of the Child Convention.
.
1. Always available to teach those who 'eagerly await'!
To be more informed, pick up Fonte's "Sovereignty or Submission."
2. Take a look at events of October, 2001. Forty seven American human rights and civil rights activists sent a letter to the UNs high commission for human rights, demanding that the United States be targeted over pervasive and persistent patterns of racial discrimination They charged that the government has not met its obligations to eliminate discrimination despite its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1994. The demands included:
a. Reparations to people of African descent
b. Admission that statistical disparities between the races is the result of systemic racism in the United States.
c. Affirmative action
d. An adequate standard of living is a right, not privilege.
e. Emphasis on anything other than multilingualism is discriminatory
f. Admission that free-market capitalism is a flawed system.
3. Any view of the processes involved in implementing these proposals would involve a collision with the American democratic system. Certainly the activists and NGOs who indicted the United States dont like the decision-making process within the American democracy, and were resorting to a process outside of the U.S. Constitution.
4. The actions and interests of the party of global governance illustrates the postconstitutional agenda that will be fought this century.
a. The government ratified CERD, with reservations removing restrictions on so called hate-speech. The NGOs and activists bitterly opposed any reservations related to the treaty.
b. human rights groups, 12 of which presented their views here, rejected the report, saying that the government had ignored the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the United States and that the report had omitted pledges of action to solve remaining problems . They also asked why Washington had refused to sign the portion of the treaty barring racist speech. U.S. Reports Progress in Fighting Bias - Rights Groups Are Critical - NYTimes.com
5. The US policies satisfied neither the UN committee nor the NGOs, who would not accept equal treatment for minorities, but, rather, equal results- that is to say, statistical equality among the races in all areas of American society.
a. Erika George, attorney for Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had simply reiterated a position which already doesnt comply with the CERD and which indicates no willingness to comply.
b. To be clear, to comply, the United States would have to abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule.
6. Global governance, e.g., the UN, is an existential threat to American democracy.
So in 2001, ELEVEN YEARS AGO, some nutjobs filed a complaint, and you are just now getting around to it?
Did we make reparations? Was the claim even given any legitimacy?
I can make a claim the US owes me a steak dinner and throw up some treaty as being the reason I am owed a steak dinner. That is not evidence the treaty itself is sucking away our national sovereignty and retroactively killing WWI soldiers.
Try again.
Quote the relevant parts of the treaties which have your panties in a bunch, and explain what those parts are doing to us. Show us actual examples where we have had to "abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule" because of those.
.
.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
That pretty much sums you up, doesn't it.