Monday, December 10, 2012 6:13:08 AM
It's only "unenforceable" until such time later that they decide to enforce it. People were once told that the police wouldn`t be stopping people for not wearing their seat belts, back when that law was originally passed, now they do it all the time. And if the UN were the police force of the US that might mean something. Unless you`re going that extra tin-hat mile and believe that the UN is going to somehow become this twisted world government that`s sole objective is to overthrow the US and turn it into a communist regime.
Sunday, December 9, 2012 2:39:13 PM
If it's just a feel-good circle-j--k session, meh,I guess, it`s what the UN does best. But if we have to shell out any more money or rights to the UN, they can go fly a kite in my opinion.
Sunday, December 9, 2012 2:39:00 PM
I could be for this UN measure, homeschooling aside, if it doesn't interfere with our sovereignty. But then what? Your just going to tell poor countries like Zimbabwe that can`t afford mass wheel-chair ramps to get them? Will it try to combat Europe`s forced sterilization and eugenics programs? My biggest problem is in the first Article "to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity." Who is ensuring it? How do you ensure it and keep it sovereign? Who`s promoting it? What are their views on inherent dignity and respect? The UN? That means France, China, and Russia get to decide, and we get to be the ones that pay for it. That I`m not for.