Anti-American, Anti-Freedom

The United Nations has been emboldened by our inability (or rather unwillingness) as a nation to stand up for our sovereignty and rights. This year the U.N. has pushed for treaties in the following areas:

1. A global tax (redistribution of wealth on a global scale)
2. A small arms ban (gun control for everybody, and in direct violation of our Second Amendment)
3. An anti-blasphemy law (to protect Islam from insults, and in direct violation of our First Amendment)

There is now talk of a U.N. agency seizing control of the Internet: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-showdown-internet.html

Folks, it’s time. We really need to get out of the United Nations. If we can get Romney elected, and get Republican control of the Senate, we need to push really hard to get the United States to withdraw from the United Nations: an organization which has become increasingly anti-American, anti-freedom.

In the 1970s, the John Birch Society sponsored billboards around the country which looked somewhat like the Facebook banner below…

I created this banner for you to use on your Facebook page and to share with others. Post it if you like it!

Creative Commons License
“Get US OUT! of the United Nations” by Daron D. Fraley is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

 

Share

Comments

Anti-American, Anti-Freedom — 11 Comments

  1. Wait – wasn’t there a saying a few years ago “Make the World England”? And didn’t we go to war to keep that from happening? Oh, yeah – the Revolutionary War!!

    So is this “Make the World the UN” now?

    We really, REALLY need a new president!

  2. Because America is the shining example of all that is amazing in this world, correct?

  3. Hmm, UN imposes sanctions and international law on non-participating countries, and this is all well and good. But when the UN suggests plans to reduce the amount of weapons in the world this is morally atrocious to you. Other cultures succumb to UN pressure on their policies everyday. These nations are not UN nations, so why would removing your country from the UN make you immune to political pressure? To be consistent, for all the times us Western countries have enforced our ideals on other cultures, we have no right to declare that a proposal is an injustice against us. The UN may be proposing something that you may not like, that doesn’t mean you aren’t going to accept it. The majority of people not in America (most notably your trusted allies the Europeans and Australia/New Zealand view America as the biggest global threat to world peace.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/greatest-threat-to-world-peace-the-united-states-of-america/5363302
    The USA’s constitution and amendments are meaningless if it disagrees with international law. Other countries have rejected international law and America has been at the forefront of putting them down. Why then, does an international law that disagrees with your constitution hold not water? From America’s past actions, a case built upon your own constitution would be an untenable position.

    The problem is largely relativistic in nature. You are not afraid to to impose your interpretations of good and evil on another country, but when Russia and China back a move to grant internet control to the UN, America disagrees on the grounds of personal freedoms, ie. Its own culture.Why does a statement made from the bias of your values mean anything? Hard to say.

    Your cultural values of freedom need not be entertained, few others hold personal liberty as highly as you do. If the UN declares that restrictions will be adopted by the USA, then please take it like everyone else has to and adopt the recommendations. Anti-Americanism is high enough without the delusions and hypocrisy of ‘personal freedom.’

    An Ideal solution is to consider the debate from a purely practical viewpoint with no subjective cultural values. This in itself may still be a culture bias, however it is preferable to a debate using cultural values due to the fact that it has something universal in nature: The consideration of benefit to as many as possible. If a certain UN resolution is found to be of benefit to a great many people, then the minority who disagree will likely be made to cop it. If the USA finds itself in this minority, don’t be selfish and fight back, but apply your own democratic philosophy consistently.

  4. It seems a little odd to me to get a comment on a blog post over a year and a half old, but I’ll roll with it…

    To “Smith”:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” — Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

    First of all, it has become necessary for us to “dissolve the political bands” of our association with the United Nations, precisely for the same reason that the United States severed itself from England: The United Nations does not respect the sovereignty of the individual, or the family, or the self evident truths and unalienable rights as declared by this sacred document.

    If you would remember your history, the vast majority of the world at the time this was written was under colonial rule by a handful of European kingdoms. The Declaration of Independence was the FIRST document of its kind, and an inspiration to oppressed people all over the world. The United States of America THREW OFF the chains of tyranny by force. They earned back their God-given rights by their revolution.

    Second, The United States does not subscribe to One World Government. We still hold “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and we do not CONSENT to be governed by the sham that the United Nations has become.

    Granted, The United States has made serious missteps by their involvement in the UN to begin with… many here in the states vociferously fought against our participation from the very beginnning, including my grandparents.

    But I really don’t care about the sins and misdeeds of the USA in the world right now. Recompense will come. Right now we are in the fight of our lives to preserve the liberties enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights that defined this REPUBLIC (it is not a Democracy), and I fear that we may just lose them all… especially since your demand that we simply roll over and take it, is all too common. We need to right this ship immediately. And THEN we can fix out image in the world by fixing WHO we are.

    Sorry, but you, my dear Smith, are woefully wrong. And you don’t understand this principle: That if America falls, so to will the rest of the world. You can count on it.

    “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.” –Ronald Reagan

  5. Wow smith. I love the way you argue for tyranny. Are you paid for that or are you just normally against freedom and personal accountability? The reason americas faults are becoming so apparent increase everytime it further embraces the ideals of the “rest of the world”. If you trample your neighbors inalienable rights you trample your own.

  6. I’ve always loved the Ronald Regan quote of a last stand for freedom! With so many people getting all worked up on saving things that going extinct we should have no problem getting more proponents saving the almost extinct US Constitution and Bill of Rights. But it would need to be taught to the children, and it’s not, they are being taught in public institutions just what Mr. Smith says, “For the greater good roll over/bend over and accept your fate.” As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord, and I know He blesses them that obey and follow Him. No UN alliegency here!

  7. Smith said, “UN imposes sanctions and international law on non-participating countries, and this is all well and good” Uh Smith, how do you figure the “all well and good” part of that statement? What meter-stick are you measuring that with? Is ANY war forcing one nation’s intentions upon someone else’s nation ever good? How does this truly bring lasting peace?

    Smith you (personally) declared, “The problem is largely relativistic in nature. You are not afraid to to impose your interpretations of good and evil on another country, but when Russia and China back a move to grant internet control to the UN, America disagrees on the grounds of personal freedoms,” In this statement you used the second person formal pronoun of “You”. Now with this pronoun were you using it to refer to A) Daron Fraley or B)The United States of America?

    If you were referring to Daron, this is a completely biased and unjust assumption because you most likely have no idea who he even is as a person. You most likely have never met him which would make this statement completely baseless.
    Now IF you were referring to the United States of America and its recent actions, then you have some ground to talk about and reference and upon which we can both agree.. The United States HAS left, rather practically fled, the council given by its founding fathers regarding entangling alliances. These alliances have been used to promote certain agenda’s which ARE NOT in accordance with the majority of the people in the United States and the rest of the world population. These agendas are what gives credence to the article from which you quote as they have become tyrannical to all. You then proceed to state “Your cultural values of freedom need not be entertained, few others hold personal liberty as highly as you do” If you are referencing the regimes sponsored during WWII under Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, the later ones of Mao, Pol Pot and others we can at least somewhat agree that the mass populations under these regimes did NOT enjoy the blessings personal liberty would have given them. Currently we can look to several countries where there is mass loss of personal liberty such as Venezuela and Argentina to see what happens when peoples rights are trampled upon. In these two nations we can see the atrocity of taking the ” take it like everyone else has to” “If a certain. . . resolution is found to be of benefit to a great many people, then the minority who disagree will likely be made to cop it”, and “don’t be selfish and fight back” mentality. I have friends personally who are living under these two tyrannical regimes. Resolutions in their countries have been passed by their perspective governments based upon these attitudes which have completely devastated their personal liberties they once enjoyed in these great nations. Why should ANYONE IN ANY NATION let the UN bastardize the freedom and liberty they once held so dear into a form of tyranny just so you Globalists can enjoy a little power?

  8. Many thanks to the replies.
    MrFraley, an important premise is involved in the support of the argument that “we do not CONSENT to be governed by the sham that the United Nations has become.” That is that the USA has the right to freedom from coercion from the wills of other nations. I do not believe we have this right given the fact that we have taken it from so many other countries. As I stated before, the USA has been a leader in enforcing sanctions and coercing nations into agreeing with resolutions passed by the United Nations. Of what meaning then is an argument made by the USA against a ruling by the UN which is not in favor with the values of its citizens?

    I likewise do not believe “The United States of America THREW OFF the chains of tyranny by force. They earned back their God-given rights by their revolution.” The white people instigating the rebellion by no means were under any tyranny compared to the oppression they inflicted upon their slaves, as was implicitly permitted by the declaration of independence itself, until the redefinition of human to involve black people later on. Given the nature of a declaration that appears to be able to change its definition of what is and isn’t wrong, it would be unconsciable to base a defense of what is and isn’t wrong on said document.

    I have noted what you say is purely in the vested interest of America. However, actions the USA has taken against other countries would seek to label themselves as hypocrites if they fail to allow any UN standard to be applied to them.

    Your case appears to in fact be contained in a single statement: “Right now we are in the fight of our lives to preserve the liberties enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights that defined this REPUBLIC…” If I may ask a question: Was it justified to impose Sanctions on countries like Belarus because they did not wish to be democratic? Who are you to impose your view of what is right and wrong upon other peoples? The USA viewed it as wrong for any country to adopt a view different to itself, thus the purpose of sanctions, so when another country or even a large group of countries declares a new rule which everyone must abide by, it is not the right of the USA to chose which to obey and which to disregard while simultaneously forcing other countries to obey dictates that it agrees with.

    (But more to attack the issue specifically, currently the USA controls much of the internet. The proposed change is the creation of an international committee that will be responsible for the control the USA currently owns. You argue for the status quo, ie, no change. Is this to mean that you support the USA controlling the internet, but nobody else?)

    If the UN decides that a resolution will be passed, the USA’s declaration of independence is not a substantial case that would convince anyone else-wise. Otherwise Iran’s view of the right to nuclear weapons may as well be entertained. I challenge you or anyone to provide a convincing argument as to why the USA’s declaration of independence ought to be considered as a valid reason to shape the decision making process of the UN, given that the UN has previously rejected similar values held with the support of the USA itself.

    I lastly must take a vehement disagreement with your closing statement. ” if America falls, so to will the rest of the world. You can count on it.” I have never been anti-american. I hopefully will never be. But the arrogance required to make such a claim does seem to justify the views of Anti-Americans that I know. The only thing many countries rely on America for is trade. Even then the USA has economic difficulty. I would ask you to explain why UN control of the internet would spell the end of the USA as we know it. Regardless, it is a growing view among other countries of the world that the USA is the biggest threat to world peace. The extremely pro-American countries like Australia and Oceania are becoming more scarce, just on the issue of America’s reputation.

    I myself have been extremely pro-American, coming from Australia. I only changed after reading this blog and realizing the way Americans view the situation. It was certainly a disillusionment.

    @James,
    I do not support tyranny of any sort. That doesn’t mean I am going to usurp a dictator and pledge $50 to help the country reform. Again the arrogance is repeated, your unalienable human rights are by your own standards not unalienable. You said these rights were God granted at a time when slavery was acceptable. You then say that ‘ If you trample your neighbors inalienable rights you trample your own.’ However your North trampled the values of the South in the abolition of slavery and that turned out ok. It’s all fine to say what was right in retrospect, however the point remains that your unalienable human rights have previously not extended to other people, have not been consistent, and whatever is not consistent cannot logically be universally true.

    @JSFisher,
    If you planned to undermine my case you would not be in use of such a strawman. The ‘all well and good,’ has been the attitude of America towards Sanctions imposed upon other countries. Are you arguing that this is bad?

    I can understand why you hold your values so dearly, however I can assure you that the dichotomy you have built up around yourself does not advance the case of personal liberty. I am not one to attack personal freedoms, being a supporter of it. I am however, one that would attack detrimental selfish motives based upon the values of personal freedoms.

Leave a Reply