US Quits UN Human Rights Council - Should We Cheer?

[Brian4Liberty]

US Quits UN Human Rights Council - Should We Cheer?

US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, announced this week that the US would be quitting the UN Human Rights Council. Haley cited bias against Israel as a prime factor in the US decision. Is this a good move...or more politics?

[Brian4Liberty]

Interesting. Russia sells $50 billion in US Treasuries, buys 600,000 ounces of gold.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes we should, we need to solve our Israel problems but this is a silver lining on that cloud.

[osan]

US Quits UN Human Rights Council - Should We Cheer?

The more we turn our backs to the UN, the better.

The only exception is our position on the security council. Being able to veto their hair-brained schemes remains a useful thing, IMO.

It would be my druthers that the UN be dissolved, but practically speaking it is not a good idea due to the corrupt nature of humans. If the UN is eliminated, just as it replaced the League of Nations, so would it too be replaced. UN is a known quantity and with our commanding position therein, the shenanigans can be managed and mostly thwarted. If a new organization were to rise from the ashes of UN, people would likely fall for whatever line of bull$#@! was being fed them as to why it is so necessary for everyone to come together as "one" and waive their individual rights in favor of those collective.

Given the forces at play, eliminating UN could be more harmful than carefully thwarting that which is now well understood.

And for the record, "UN Human Rights Council"... really... this doesn't even rise to the status of a joke. I've read and analyzed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It talks a lot and says nearly nothing - weasel-wording from front to back, either designed to mislead or written by people who apparently cannot string more than two words together in coherent and sound fashion. The document is a travesty on its best day.

Here's what I had to say about the Preamble.

[Madison320]

And for the record, "UN Human Rights Council"... really... this doesn't even rise to the status of a joke. I've read and analyzed the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

It starts off good but when you get to around #23 you start getting into fake rights that are actually violations of previously declared rights.

For example Article 25 violates Article 17. You can't give people stuff without first stealing it from someone else.

Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Docume...ations/eng.pdf

Plus in practice the UN mostly focuses on the violations of fake rights and ignores violations of actual rights.

[Ender]

So, does this means we stop bombing countries that we've declared are abusing human rights?

[osan]

It starts off good but when you get to around #23 you start getting into fake rights that are actually violations of previously declared rights.

For example Article 25 violates Article 17. You can't give people stuff without first stealing it from someone else.

Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Docume...ations/eng.pdf

Plus in practice the UN mostly focuses on the violations of fake rights and ignores violations of actual rights.

Actually, it is crap from the first sentence onward.

You may read the analysis, beginning with the preamble.


The analysis was divided into four parts. One has gone MIA. I have no idea what happened to it, but can tell you that if you glean my basic approach, you can reproduce my work readily and with ease for the third part, which is the one missing.