UN Resolution On “Human Rights” Clearly Shows the Gloablist Agenda

Click here to view the original post.

 stock here–publishing in draft format.   My computer is running a special data recovery program.   I tried to repartition my drives to provide enough room for photo management and backups, and in that effort, lost my entire data drive, which became recognized as unformatted.   I had a recent OS system image that I was able to transfer to a nice brand spanking new 3 TB drive, and then reset the bios to boot from the new drive so I could work on the “old drive”, it is just 49% done but found 7,125,000 files, so I hope it is doing well.  

Bottom line…must let it run, and hope.   My most important stuff is on a hot swappable file server with 2X backup, but losing my local data drive would suck big time.  

So I can’t finish until I can reload “Snagit” which had components on the failed partition.

The partition adjustment occurred while using Acronis Disk Director 11.    Their support is pretty much non-existent, although their website pretends you can get support, but it is a guise.    They were a great product 10 years ago, now becoming close to dysfunctional.

stock here–A very slanted editorial by Common Dreams, from an immigrant to the USA, depicts the recent vote by the USA AGAINST a broad set of rules on human rights, as being strictly “racist” by Trump against LGBT people.    You can read his whole article, if I can find it again, but the source document, which he did not provide and took quite a while for me to find, is here


stock here — my read on this is it would require “medical professionals” to follow the wishes of their patients, if those patients wish to be put to death.

I can sure imagine many “medical professionals” who would take issue with this, would not want to be required by law to kill someone.

And although they give some examples “such as the mortally wounded or terminally ill” the actual definition is much broader than that, as broad as “afflicted adults”.    Side note, this fails to address “afflicted” juveniles or children or toddlers or babies or fetuses.

Although I am generally in favor of Euthanasia when there is no quality of life, lots of pain, and no future, it should be up to individual states (and by that I mean the states of the United States of America) to decide their exact language and treatment.     By no means do I want a Centralized World Government telling my state what they must do. 

Let’s also be very clear, this paragraph that talks about the unambiguous decision of their patients, is itself VERY ambiguous with the green highlighted at top in complete contradiction to the mandatory aspect of the blue highlights near the bottom.   Should not prevent, is completely different than the robust legal verification of “compliance”.

The timing of this, and the contradictory nature of what it says, is remarkable.
North Korea is developing larger nuclear weapons and improved missile delivery systems, and has threatened the USA and Japan.   USA is required to protect Japan.

This article would say  that even if North Korea set off a nuclear bomb on Japan or USA, and if USA responded with nuclear bombs, that the military leaders and political leaders could be tried for crimes.

There is no way the USA could approve this paragraph with the current threat we are under.

I can’t argue this one too much.   I believe that we need abortion, not just as a citizen rights issue, but strictly as a practical issue.

But the overreach of the Centralized World Government (acting as the United Nations) to requires all sovereign countries to conduct sex education classes (particularly to adolescents) is going too far.    My friends 14 YO daughter was forced to attend an “education” class in which they “informed” the students that there were many forms of sex: intercourse, oral, anal and more.   They explained that they were all just “sex” and that at some point a boy might ask her to have anal sex and she would have to make up her own mind.

This is today.   What does tomorrow look like when the global police are in our schools to make sure “it is being done correctly”.   We know the globalist strategy is to degrade the morals of America and elsewhere.
Now I am not a prude and pretty open minded in regards to consenting adults do have the right to pretty much do anything they want.    But this “education” requirement is over the top.

I am against the UN trying to force sovereign countries to pay for and provide healthcare, especially pre-natal and post abortion.    For sure it should be allowed and not restricted, BUT NOT required to pay and provide.
Although I agree with this one, I must point out the hypocrisy of the globalist funded strategy to

Encouraging black men to put their lives at risk by disobeying police orders is disgusting.

encourage young black men in the USA to not listen to police orders, to taunt the officers, to walk away, to keep walking towards the officers.    This is one offshoot of the “Black Lives Matters” strategy
REDO graphic

I could see why many countries would have a problems with the Centralized UN telling them how to
do Gun Control, Knife Control, Taser Control.

And then requiring the “State” police or a UN Police to continuously supervise within each country, their

1) Private entities
2) Transportation
3) Hospitals (must make sure those Doctors are doing what the UN wants)
4) Security firms.

Anyone see any possible problems with that? <sarc>