Specifically -- and most alarmingly -- the language I am referring to is: "unelected body." It leads to tyranny, gang, and turning over any of your rights as an American to an un-elected body is never a good idea.
There is much uproar in the "progressive" media today about the Senate vote yesterday that defeated the UN treaty on disabilities.
(And let's take a quick moment to look at the implications of "progressive;" a tricky word. Do you automatically think progressive means a positive type of progress? It could really mean something is progressing in a direction that is not in your best interests in the long term. Start looking at words, gang, really looking, and ask yourselves in what way might a word be used as a weapon against you psychologically, even if it comes draped in the garb of something that feels good.)
Defeating the UN treaty on disabilities yesterday does not mean that the Senate and/or Republicans, in general, want to be mean to and/or have lots more money than disabled people all over the world, okay??
What the Senate took issue with, as Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the leader of the opposition said, was that the Treaty would create an "unelected bureaucratic body [which] would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory."
And to be honest, gang, when was the last time you took a good, hard look at the United Nations? Really examined what they're doing and why? It would behoove you to consider that the term "United Nations" might be one of those tricky words like "progressive" that comes fully loaded with feel-good connotations that could, if left unexamined, be used as a weapon against you psychologically. By this, I mean: just because it's the UN, and their building is based in New York City, and we're supposed to be "progressively" global nowadays, it doesn't mean that it's okay to just give them carte-blanche (unconditional authority) over the rights of the American people.
The United Nations was established to be a peacekeeping body in the world. It was formed during World War II in an attempt to rid the world of and keep it safe from Nazis, Fascists, and rabid Imperialists. How we, as Americans, do or don't treat disabled citizens or foreigners is not the business of the United Nations. And I ask you, in all honesty and fairness, doesn't this country treat people with disabilities with a lot of respect? Are you noticing any odious uprisings in this country against disabled people?
So come on, we don't need the United Nations enforcing any types of treaties upon us by an unelected body that we cannot vote for or against at any point down the line. Dick Morris (yes, a hardcore Republican) had this to say yesterday:
"While the UN Treaty merely encodes in international law, provisions that are already binding on the US in the Americans with Disabilities Act, any subsequent changes our Congress wanted to make would be forbidden since jurisdiction would have been transferred to the UN. And, any further regulations the UN chose to impose would be binding on us without consulting our Congress.
"Supporters of the Treaty said that it was necessary to protect Americans with disabilities when they travel abroad. This goal is worthy and can best be achieved through bi-lateral treaties with other nations that do not bind the United States hand and foot."
Okay, so why is this treaty such a big deal?? Because next on the agenda are things that get a lot more alarming. (Again I'm quoting Dick Morris to save myself a ton of typing.)
"Coming behind it [UN disabilities treaty] will be ratification votes on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Small Arms Treaty, and the Internet Regulation Treaty...
"The Law of the Sea Treaty transfers legal ownership and sovereignty over the world's oceans and seas to the UN and obliges signatories to get UN permission for off shore drilling and to share their royalties and technology with third world countries.
"The Small Arms Treaty creates an international body to police exports of small arms from companies and individuals around the world and requires signatory countries to inventory the small arms within its borders and to adopt whatever measures are needed to prevent their export - UN gun control.
"The Internet Regulation Treaty is currently under negotiation in Dubai and is due to be signed on December 14. It will impose a charge for sending steaming video to anyone outside of your own nation. You will have to pay it and can collect reimbursement from the recipient. It is designed to make it too expensive for Russians and Chinese and others in autocratic countries to access steaming video." [End quote]
Let me also make a comment about gun control here, gang. I, personally, do not like guns. However, I really like knowing that if, for some horrible reason, I suddenly find I need a gun to protect myself, I can go buy one. Why? Because it is my right as an American.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Why did our Founding Fathers think it necessary to include this as one of our fundamental rights as Americans? Because if you take away our right to bear arms -- to have guns -- we can not fight against an invading enemy or against military tyranny within our own borders. (And keep in mind, gang, it might be fun to be a Socialist right now, but you seriously do not want to be a Socialist without access to your own gun.)
Regardless of how you may feel about guns, do you seriously want one of your fundamental rights as an American to be turned over to an unelected body -- and, further, to a "body" that you aren't really paying close attention to these days because you've been raised to believe the UN is always acting in the best interests of everyone?
(And if that were really true, why on earth would the UN be involved in the Internet Regulation Treaty? Check this out again: "It will impose a charge for sending steaming video to anyone outside of your own nation." This is the beginning of governmental regulation of the Internet. Hey, you might be asking yourselves, why is the United Nations, that peacekeeping body established to fight Nazis and Fascists, getting involved with making me pay for a streaming video that someone in China or Russia might be viewing??)
And further ask yourself this: Did I even KNOW that this treaty is currently under negotiation in Dubai and is due to be signed on December 14th?? [9 days from today -- Ed.]
Again, let's quickly take a look at that word "progressive" and then ask ourselves, "progressing toward what??"
Gang, it is totally OKAY to be a liberal Democrat -- like I am -- and ask yourselves these questions.
I leave you with something to mull over as well as celebrate. Our Founding Fathers set up our government to be a perfect balance between tyranny and anarchy by making it a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This balance is maintained by weighing our natural instincts of compassion and problem-solving against the rights and individual freedom of the people (from Skousen's 5000 Year Leap, 1981, p.26). Too much "compassion" -- too much giving away of our unalienable rights to unelected bodies (i.e., people we have no authority or control over) even with all their feel-good connotations --will lead to tyranny, eventually. In the same way that too much policing and lack of compassion leads to anarchy, eventually. (i.e., "How's that Arab Spring working out?")
It is our right as Americans to retain our own control over keeping that balance between tyranny and anarchy in our individual lives here in this country. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were founded on this. It is important stuff, gang.
About Marilyn Jaye
Causes Marilyn Jaye Lewis Supports
The Film Council of Greater Columbus, Columbus, OH
The Adrienne Shelley Foundation, NY, NY
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Washington, DC...