quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
A couple of times now have posts referred to the U.N. as "socialist." In what way?....

I read a brief description of socialism from early WWII, stating that in the name of heping the needy and enabling equality among the proletariat, the gov't will use their power to serve themselves first, and become masters over the people. Even if their original intentions and goals are honorable (not always a sure thing), those in power inevitably become addicted to their power.

Seems to me the UN is a perfect fit of such. They take money from the wealthy nations, take the UN cut off the top, spend the remainder (often with cronies) to placate the less fortunate (and often in ways that keep the less fortunate dependent which keeps the UN in power).

Ostensibly the UN Charter was patterned after the US Constitution. However the Constitution divides and separates power, keeps such power close to the people through direct voting. Seems the UN Charter concentrates power to a relative few, and keeps that power away from the people.

It would seem, ala Maggie Thatcher, the UN us running out of other people's money to spend.

sooma,

Terrible abuses and corruption.

I suppose that we will see if U.S. leadership/participation yields change.

In the meantime, I remember President Trump considering an Executive Order to have all U.S. food aid being shipped only aboard U.S. vessels.

I remember him saying that he wanted our food aid to bear U.S. instead of U.N. markings to remind recipients of who is helping them.

As I remember from last year, President Trump decided to wait on that approach for now. Time will tell if we decide to bypass the U.N. all together.

We are hearing of this international conference on international religious freedom.

In 1998, Congress created the International Religious Freedom Act. In essence, to me, it was our bypass to the U.N. because the U.N. lost its way.

To protect/advance religious freedom (in my view the advancement of TOLERANCE), the USCIRF was created to advance those freedoms and the rights recognized in Article 18 of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights Link.

To me, it as if the United States has initiated a process to ensure the U.N mandate on our own.

Obama pushed debasement and hyper U.N. integration. But, President Trump has gone back to the 1998 legislation and is seeking to do something less bureaucratic and more effective.

That coming conference on religious freedom is under the auspices of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom cited above.

If the U.N. will not change/improve, this administration appears to be willing to focus its former U.N. efforts from home.

Ambassador Bolton before his term with the U.N. was a commissioner with the USCIRF. I honestly think if the U.N. in its corrupted services won't mend its ways, they may have a very serious loss of funding.

We have weight in the U.N. and I believe we will use it.

quote:

Originally posted by stkfox:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
tubetone:
thanks for an informative & rather optimistic essay on UNism, whatever it may be.

@tubetone

“The core function is found in the U.N. Charter and the aspirations stated in its creation.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its first generation is a good look, too. The U.N. has strayed off course.

1/ Um, no it’s not a GOOD look! No where in its entirety does it state that basic human rights come from GOD! No where. In fact, although those UN declared rights, formulated in 1948, sound good and just and right please see the clause below from its Article 29, sec. C, part 3:

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised “contrary” to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

In other words, if the U.N. don’t like it, it’s on!

2/ No head of the U.N. has ever been from a country other than a socialist or socialist leaning country, and most with an anti-American point of view.

3/ Pls note the sculpture of the twisted gun barrel that resides in front of the U.N.headquarters in NY, There’s a reason for that. link for your perusal:

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/26878

4/ “”In the late 80s I graduated from the International Institute of Human Rights (Institut International des Droits de l’Homme) in Strasbourg, France, having completed two residencies and successfully passed their three day exam before various experts in international organizations/Human Rights””

@tubetone: There in lies the crux of your problem with your world view. You were indoctrinated, it all sounds just grand, you bought it all. Your accomplishments aside, you were in Europe, feasting off those with their heads continuously thrust up their asses.

Just as an aside and for shits and giggles, look up Agenda 21, for which the U.N. is also to blame.

Blimey, au revoir, I think I’m done.

There is so much to unpack in your post.

Rather than point/counter, I'd like to make a few observations.

Because you may not have studied the issue, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was primarily drafted by Rene Cassin. For his effort, he won the Nobel Peace Prize and used part of the money to found the International Institute of Human Rights.

The Declaration does not say that rights come from God because he was drafting a political document containing specific propositions to which signatories would need to agree.

Mr. Cassin, it is reported but in later years obfuscated, took the religious and philosophical writings from all over the world and tried to write propositions to which all governments could agree. They did not have to agree about why the propositions were true. They just needed to agree to the propositions. Getting into conceptions of God was not helpful to creating a UNIVERSAL declaration.

As far as believing that the U.N. was always a leftist, socialist organization, you may wish to ask yourself if that is true, why it was led by the western powers after the second world war. How it was twisted is not to declare anything about its core intentions.

Indeed, the history of its development may well turn out to be the explanation of its ultimate failure.

Now to all that business about being twisted, I’d like to give you another thought by way of example.

When in college, I had a political philosophy professor who was a dyed in the wool, believing to the core, communist. He led tours to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, touting Yugoslavia as the best example of communism that ever existed.

We didn’t agree about anything. I learned and wrote about his philosophy and assumptions as well as that of both socialism and communism, stating accurately what he taught while explaining why I didn’t agree.

True education is not about sucking down just whatever idea someone teaches. It’s about learning the points and arguments thoroughly and interacting about and probing the points, assumptions, and conclusions.

To understand is not to be indoctrinated. That professor, in fact, was a big advocate for me being awarded the top honor in political science at my graduation. He was almost a broken man when Yugoslavia ultimately imploded.

BTW, I hate Agenda 21. There are a lot of bad things that come out of the U.N. but if garbage fell out of a car, I may not hold it against the car.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Ostensibly the UN Charter was patterned after the US Constitution.

It is patterned much more after the Articles of Confederation in my view.

. . . you know, government by begging for money from member states, no way to raise or fund its own army, and etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
A couple of times now have posts referred to the U.N. as "socialist." In what way?....

I read a brief description of socialism from early WWII, stating that in the name of heping the needy and enabling equality among the proletariat, the gov't will use their power to serve themselves first, and become masters over the people. Even if their original intentions and goals are honorable (not always a sure thing), those in power inevitably become addicted to their power.

Seems to me the UN is a perfect fit of such. They take money from the wealthy nations, take the UN cut off the top, spend the remainder (often with cronies) to placate the less fortunate (and often in ways that keep the less fortunate dependent which keeps the UN in power).

I guess that is why I can't see it meeting up. The U.N. has no power to force payments to itself. They do not TAKE any money as a socialist government could do.

We voluntarily feed the monster and we could put it on a diet.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:....I guess that is why I can't see it meeting up. The U.N. has no power to force payments to itself. They do not TAKE any money as a socialist government could do.

We voluntarily feed the monster and we could put it on a diet.

Agreed, the UN can't directly take money the way a gov't can. But they have "acquired" money through public sentiment, coersion, and I believe collusion with gov't officials.

I still believe in the trappings of socialism, the UN execs first focus is to serve themselves, those they "serve" come second. I also believe various gov't execs have taken action nationally (not in the best interest of the nation) based on UN decrees.

For those in doubt, do some research on the UN Global Gun Control Agenda. The articles in American Rifleman are a good starting point. The NRA has been very clear in their warnings about the UN's gun control agenda.

That's a deal breaker for me, and enough for me to say I'm not interested in keeping the UN around. I'm more of a 2A guy.

Radioman,

It's very true that there are a lot of peaceniks in and around the U.N. I am not one of them. I do think there are some things worth fighting for.

But, I remember staring at a display from Hiroshima at the U.N. in New York one day. It was a large stone that had a crouching woman's figure burned into it from the heat of the bomb.

It's hard to not have such a sight cause one to think about the awesome power of nuclear weapons and how if the U.N. can help us talk about tensions instead of sending a nuclear message, it just may have value.

U.N. gun control is off the mark to me too.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

I still believe in the trappings of socialism, the UN execs first focus is to serve themselves, those they "serve" come second.

That kind of reminds me of the ever popular - as popular as the .45 is mo betta' - argument in philosophy about altruism.

Can one ever do a truly selfless act? That philosophical square dance started a long time ago and need not be repeated here.

But, that someone may serve themselves first before they serve others is not about socialism to me. If that was socialism, almost everything would be socialism.

For instance, people get elected in our system to serve but also to scratch a personal itch to self-actualize or give back or grasp power. That doesn't make them socialist to me.

We may be developing a looser definition of socialism in our times.