An Ol' Broad's Ramblings


28 November 2012, 8:57 am. 7 Comments. Filed under Opinion, UN.

And get that feckless bunch of weasels OUT of the U.S.! Honestly, I can’t think of one nice thing to say about the UN, other than they did, in the beginning, manage to “allow” Israel to re-establish herself. That’s pretty much it!

The more the UN interferes, the worse things get. It doesn’t matter which country we’re talking about, but take the Congo for example. Those UN “peace keepers” have quite a reputation for rape and corruption. Does anyone think they would handle the U.S. any better than her citizens. Just why is it that the UN wants to take control of the U.S.? And why is it that the clown who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States is all to willing to hand over control to a bunch of foreign, murderous thugs?

Our Constitution trumps any foreign law, but yet it seems that this administration, and a few prior, have been handing over more and more of OUR God given rights into the hands of power hungry scum suckers, the biggest abusers of human rights since Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao.

It’s bad enough that the election was stolen through fraud and deceit, now we have to contend with a Senate who has obviously forgotten just whose side they are SUPPOSE to be on? I don’t bleepin’ think so! Handing our country over to a bunch of thieves like the UN is just one more nail in our coffin.

The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
~ Thomas Jefferson ~

Disabilities Treaty Just Another U.N. Power Grab
The Foundry

International treaties sound like a good idea, especially when they claim to protect vulnerable people. The problem is, America already does more than any other country to ensure equal rights for its people—and the United Nations just wants the power to interfere in American law.

The Senate is now considering the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). President Obama signed this treaty in 2009, but the Senate has yet to agree to it. It needs a two-thirds majority of Senators to ratify it. In September, 36 Republican Senators signed a letter stating that they would oppose any treaties that came up for a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress. We will see now whether that promise holds.

Steven Groves, Heritage’s Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow, has explained that despite its name, the treaty will not help Americans with disabilities:

The rights of Americans with disabilities are well protected under existing law and are enforced by a wide range of state and federal agencies. Joining CRPD merely opens the door for foreign “experts” to interfere in U.S. policymaking in violation of the principles of American sovereignty.

For starters, the treaty doesn’t even define disabilities, but says that “disability is an evolving concept.” This is consistent with the nature of U.N. treaties, which often extend the organization’s reach beyond the original treaty concept. Groves writes:

Human rights treaty committees have been known to make demands that fall well outside the scope of the subject matter of the treaty and conflict with the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of states. This has especially been the case with the U.S.

For example, the U.N. committee that is supposed to make recommendations on racial discrimination tried to dictate to the United States how it should handle enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay and said the U.S. should end the death penalty. And the committee that oversees the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women regularly advocates that the U.S. decriminalize prostitution.

The disabilities treaty could open the door for abortion advocates “to pressure the U.S. to liberalize its domestic abortion laws or policies governing foreign aid for family planning,” says Heritage’s Grace Melton. U.N. officials have already pointed to language in the treaty as helpful in expanding abortion.

As if all of this weren’t enough, U.N. treaties are always aimed directly at Americans’ wallets. This one is no different. The cost of enforcing it is unknown. Not only does the treaty fail to define who would be considered disabled, but it also adds entitlements to whoever that may be. In addition to covering traditional civil rights, the treaty attempts to guarantee:

certain economic, social, and cultural “positive rights,” such as the right to education, health, and “an adequate standard of living for [persons with disabilities] and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”

As is usually the case, the United States is already an example to the rest of the world in this area. This country has multiple major federal laws that protect Americans with disabilities, ensuring their access to services and their rights—in addition to the rights all Americans enjoy because of the Bill of Rights. No other country can begin to compete with the safeguards America has in place.

Inviting the United Nations and other international groups to come in with authority over America’s treatment of its citizens would not help people with disabilities and would have many harmful—and costly—consequences.

(An aside:  There are plenty of reasons to start impeachment proceedings against Obama.  His handing over control to a foreign body is just a start.)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!


  1. Steven. 28 November 2012, 11:25 am

    Any law, ordanance, treaty or agreement that has “we’ll pencil the specifics in later” would never pass muster under U.S. law – at least when it hit the courts.

    Now, lol, which is EXACTLY the problem with Obamacare and why the ones who pushed it kept saying they hadn’t read it : Many of them hadn’t, but the real issue was that so much of it was going to be regulatory and almost NONE of that was yet written.

    I don’t believe we need to leave the U.N., as our veto power alone makes it helpful to keep them from doing harmful things.  I do think we should move the U.N. headquarters to some flyover state acres and acres of cornfield kind of area: right now the U.N. diplomats love to live like princes in N.Y. City.

    Let them move to a beautiful but empty area.  It removes their desire to act and feel like princes and fearless law breakers – and also it stops a lot of the (almost never talked about) smuggling that goes on via diplomatic pouches.

  2. Father D. 28 November 2012, 12:19 pm

    Like the League of Nations, the UN was an idea dedicated to promoting world peace through dialog and open conversation in a worldwide forum. I do not think it was ever intended to act jointly, as it did in Korea, at least in the beginning. The idea that it would field a united military force (conveniently comprised mostly of American military and funded almost entirely from the US)  was a huge mistake, and has gotten us into multiple international wars that we should have stayed well clear of. We have long funded this parasite organization in which tiny, brutal dictatorships presume to address us as equals, make demands upon us, and act like we must treat them as our equals or superiors, while we fund most of the operation. This has to stop now.

  3. Father D. 28 November 2012, 12:25 pm

    In reply to Steven:
    Absolutely no way should the UN be moved to flyover country. We who live in flyover country do not want the foul, corrupting, stink of the UN in our beautiful, clean country side. The need to be moved to Brussels, the ideal place, already fully corrupted to the max. Or perhaps Calcutta, Mecca, or some place in the dirtiest part of China. No way should they be moved to flyover country!

  4. Gary K.. 28 November 2012, 1:14 pm

    I vote for moving them to the South Pole.

    Also, that is where all of the Climate Change meetings should be held. 

  5. TheBunker. 28 November 2012, 1:31 pm

    Gary K.
    Before we load up the moving trucks, maybe we should check with penguins. Although, I guess they are already dressed for the occasion.

  6. Mark smith. 28 November 2012, 3:26 pm

    Don’t m move it to an arabic state!  They will blow it up and we will have to rebuild it again, again, again and again. No wait that sound good. Lets go for it:)    As far as the only good  thing the UN did was allow a Jewish State,    that was done in hopes that all the Jews would go back, nobody wanted them in their country

  7. Father D. 29 November 2012, 11:29 am

    I am an old man now, but I was just a boy when the UN was formed. I was somewhat suspicious at the time, but I recall everyone else telling me what a great thing it would be, how it would promote world peace, etc. It was not long before we were in the war in Korea through the UN, but somehow, that was promoting “peace,” or so I was told. That war depressed me so badly that, as a kid, I stopped reading the news papers for about 3 years because I was sure the US was going to be beaten. I had many fresh memories of WW II, and I could not deal with more war new. I was quite surprised several years later, when it was almost over to pick up a paper and discover that the UN (that is the US)  had just about stomped the chinks.
    In all my years (over 70 now), I really cannot think of anything good that the UN has done. The US would have been much better off to follow Washington’s advice and stay out of foreign entanglements, which they have involved us in repeatedly. At times, the US has used the UN as an an excuse or a cover to justify meddling where it should not have gone, but had there been no UN, or had we not have been a part of it, we might have stayed out and been much the better for it.