Are we still a sovereign nation?
Are we moving closer to a global system controlled by the United Nations, dare we say a “one world government?”
Let us start by looking at this from the perspective of the organizations that are calling for the UN to monitor our polling places. We need to realize that this is a different America then the America that most of us remember growing up in. We are being slowly conditioned to accept this new system. If you look at the other side of the coin there are many who truly believe the America they have known is flawed, as that is what they have been taught. In turn they believe it needs to be fundamentally changed. So they look toward the UN and other organizations that support this view. In their view it is a human rights issue.
Below is an excerpt of a letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, and six other civil rights organizations to the OSCE (Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe) just for an idea of this mindset.
According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, photo ID requirements, shortened early voting periods, limits on poll worker assistance, proof of citizenship requirements, restrictions on same day and community-based registration, and disenfranchisement of former felons, may result in the disenfranchisement of more than five million Americans in this election. These efforts are nothing less than an all-out assault on the progress of the last century—indeed, on the very legacy of the civil and human rights movement. They are part of a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans—particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities, low-income people, women, young people, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.
Now, in the America I remember this would have been questioned. After all, we have our own sovereign laws and a nationally sealed legal system in this country.
The above makes no sense unless it is seen through the prism of assumed violation of a humans rights, in the eyes of the organizations filing the complaint. This explains the disconnect with, perhaps, some older and some younger people, more indoctrinated by globalists. They see an utopian world, achievable in their eyes. We see something much much different.
Let us now look at “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” from the UN. Then, maybe things will become clearer (emphasis added).
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
The Universial Declaration of Human Rights
It needs to be understood that when the UN comes in to monitor our polls, it is based on international law not our law. Below are a two more examples of how influential the UN is, in the current administration.
On March 2011, we went into Libya via the direction of the UN.
Mr. Obama sent a letter on Monday notifying Congress he had acted in Libya, in conjunction with the War Powers Act’s 48 hours requirement. He said he authorized the action as part of a response authorized under the U.N. security council demanding that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi change course or face consequences; the goal, he said, is “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”
“I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive,” he wrote.
It must be noted through the aforementioned link (U.N. security council) this comes directly from the Charter of the United Nations. Also, it is important to make note of Samantha Power, member of this administration’s National Security Council and wife of Cass Sunstein, former administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs. Ms. Power was instrumental in the decision to go into Libya.
The White House has also issued a report to the UN Human Rights Council over the immigration law, S.B. 1070, issued by Jan Brewer in Arizona.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state’s controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations’ human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is “downright offensive” that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
“The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” Brewer wrote.
In sales training, a common closing technique is “the presumptive close.” In it, the transaction is casually prepared in front of the customer as if he is assumed to have made a decision. In increments, transnational progressives are closing the deal to destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America, effectively nullifying our own charter, the Declaration of Independence. And by our Declaration and Constitution, this is fraud.
Contributor: Arlen Williams