Offering yet another illustration of the true agenda behind what the United Nations mischaracterizes as “human rights,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (shown) claimed the polarizing U.S. Supreme Court ruling purporting to redefine marriage for all 50 states was a “great step forward for human rights in the United States.” The UN chief also celebrated a homosexual activist infamous for sexually exploiting vulnerable underage boys.
Meanwhile, under the guise of promoting its pseudo-“human rights,” the dictator-dominated global outfit has been waging open war on the constitutionally protected unalienable rights of the American people to keep and bear arms, to freedom of speech, to own and use private property, and much more. Around the world, the UN is also under heavy fire for trampling all over real rights while promoting its bizarre notions of “human rights” — in reality mere privileges that, according to the UN "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," can be revoked at will by governments, and may not be used contrary to the “purposes and principles” of the UN.
When it comes to same-sex “marriage,” though, the UN chief was fully onboard with “rights.” In interviews, speeches, and even official press releases, Ban was fervently celebrating the U.S. high court’s decision to strip the American people of their right to self-government and, in the words of one dissenting Justice, establish itself as a “threat to American democracy.” “I whole-hardheartedly welcome this historic decision,” the UN boss, in San Francisco to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter, told ABC7 news anchor Cheryl Jennings in an interview. “This is a great step forward for human rights in the United States.” In a speech given that same day at a lunch for the UN pro-homosexuality and -transgender campaign “free and equal,” Ban celebrated June 26 as “a day we celebrate not only the birth of the United Nations but marriage equality for all Americans.” “Truly, this is a day for the history books!” he exclaimed, arguing that not redefining marriage to include homosexuals “opens the door to widespread discrimination.” Various UN spokesmen busily echoed those remarks on the UN website and in media reports around the world.
Just 18 UN member governments — less than one in 10 — currently legitimize same-sex marriage. The first government effort purporting to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples came about barely a decade ago, meaning, according to Ban’s supposed logic, that every nation on Earth for all of human history was violating “human rights” until the turn of the millennium, when the UN and the U.S. Supreme Court graced the world with “LGBT” enlightenment. Indeed, just three years ago, even Obama ran for office recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman. Almost half of the UN’s member governments and dictatorships still criminalize homosexual activity today, and eight of those have laws punishing homosexuality with death. In many more countries, the secretary-general’s own comments could run afoul of laws banning homosexual propaganda. The nine in 10 UN member governments that do not recognize the imagined “human right” to homosexual marriage did not openly comment on Ban’s statements.
How the secretary-general supposedly reasoned his way into declaring that homosexual marriage was now somehow a “human right” was not immediately clear. He did not offer any explanation. Indeed, even the UN’s own declaration of pseudo-human rights does not include any mention of homosexuality, much less homosexual marriage or the “right” to use unelected courts to usurp and un-define the oldest social institution of mankind in flagrant defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the norms of every culture in human history, and virtually every religion on the planet. The pro-homosexual establishment outfit Amnesty International, which lobbies for the UN’s version of bogus “human rights” around the world, admits that the whole plot hinges on “evolving conceptions of international human rights law [sic].” The group goes on to cite Article 16 of the UN document, which states that, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” Of course, it does not say men and men, or women and women, or men or women, but rather, men and women.
During his San Francisco trip where he celebrated the Supreme Court ruling and the UN’s founding 70 years ago, Ban also praised a homosexual leader infamous for his rape of vulnerable underage boys. “It was from this building, some 40 years ago, that Harvey Milk helped to set in train America’s gay rights revolution — a revolution that continues to this day not just in this country but around the world,” Ban declared in San Francisco. “The measures he advocated here — including new laws to protect people from discrimination — are the same measures that, today, we advocate to governments everywhere.” Milk’s predatory behavior led at least two of his young victims, including 16-year-old Jack Galen McKinley, to commit suicide. Still, Ban vociferously celebrated the man and boasted that, today, he uses the same arguments Milk used to convince governments not just to tolerate homosexuality, but to “embrace” it. The UN chief also received a medal from the Harvey Milk Foundation for his efforts to undermine marriage and family.
While Ban was busy celebrating homosexual marriage and the exploiter of underage boys who started what the UN boss touted as “America’s gay revolution,” the UN was embroiled in a major pedophilia scandal that threatens to further tarnish the organization’s image worldwide. As The New American and media outlets around the world have been reporting for months, numerous contingents of UN “peace” troops were exposed raping street children as young as nine in the Central African Republic. The UN knew about it but sought to cover it up — at least until a whistleblower exposed the whole sordid affair. In response, the upper echelons of UN leadership have been working furiously to destroy the whistleblower, promptly firing him and escorting him from his office under armed guard as a supposed “investigation” proceeds. In Haiti, meanwhile, the UN’s “peace” military is also under fire for widespread, systemic sexual abuse of women and children — following a similar decades-long pattern of grotesque abuses by UN forces in virtually every country occupied by the UN. This year, UN peace troops have also slaughtered numerous unarmed protesters, in addition to recently backing forces that butchered thousands of Christians in the Ivory Coast.
Aside from the horrors perpetrated by UN troops against the actual rights of innocent civilians across Africa and beyond, the UN was also busy violating the actual human rights of many other people around the world. Among the most recent concerns: a UN “court” is seeking to imprison for seven years a Lebanese journalist for committing journalism and exposing the kangaroo tribunal’s spectacular incompetence. Around the world, the UN is also waging war on free speech under the guise of “human rights.” And closer to home, the global organization, widely ridiculed as the “dictators club,” has been hard at work trying to undermine unalienable rights protected in the U.S. Constitution to make way for UN-defined “human rights.” From attacks on the First and Second Amendments to flagrant assaults on the Fourth, Fifth, and 10th Amendments, the UN is becoming increasingly bold in seeking to undermine the American system of government — much of it under the banner of UN “human rights.”
The reason for it all is fairly simple: The UN means something very different when it discusses “human rights” than, say, the unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, or even traditional Western notions of human rights. In the American system, rights such as self-defense, free speech, religious liberty, trial by jury, privacy, property, and gun ownership are endowed by the Creator upon every individual — a truth that America’s Founders viewed as “self-evident.” Because individuals’ human rights come from God, they cannot be legitimately infringed upon by any government. In fact, according to the Founders, government was instituted for the express purpose of protecting those God-given rights from infringement — a sentiment they expressed explicitly in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, which lists some of those unalienable rights, merely protects pre-existing rights endowed upon everyone by the Creator.
Under the UN’s version of human rights, however, “rights” are purportedly defined and granted to people by governments, treaties, and international organizations. Even more troubling, perhaps, is that they can be restricted or abolished by government at will under virtually any pretext, as the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” openly admits. And in no case may those alleged “rights” be used against the UN. Consider Article 29 of the declaration, which claims that “everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” Yet, separately, the same article claims that everyone has “duties to the community” and that “rights and freedoms” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” For perspective, that would be like the First Amendment saying Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech is being used to criticize Congress or otherwise makes Congress unhappy.
Obviously, the two views on human rights are incompatible at a basic level. The two visions are actually almost opposites. If further evidence was needed about how the UN views “human rights,” plenty more can be found with a brief examination of the composition of its so-called “Human Rights Council,” the highest “authority” within the UN system on the issue. In November of 2013, the outfit selected the most barbaric regimes on the planet to sit on the body. Among the mass-murdering regimes selected to sit on the UN’s self-styled “human rights” entity, for example, were the communist dictatorships enslaving the people of China, Cuba, and Vietnam. The socialist regime in Namibia was selected for the council, too, joining the brutal socialist autocracy ruling Venezuela that recently disarmed law-abiding citizens with UN help. Also appointed were the hardline Islamist tyrants ruling over Algeria and Saudi Arabia, which considers converting to Christianity a capital offense and continues to publicly behead “apostates” and others, ISIS-style. If the genocidal mass-murdering maniac ruling Sudan had not withdrawn his bid in the face of a global outcry, his seat on the council was all but assured.
To remain free, Americans must reject UN meddling in U.S. affairs — whether it be on marriage, gun rights, drug laws, criminal justice, state sovereignty, free speech, water bills, policing, or any other matter. The secretary-general is way out of line once again and is becoming increasingly bold in his attacks. Congress should work to have the U.S. withdraw from the UN by passing the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. In the meantime, the GOP majority should ensure that not one more U.S. tax dollar flows to the dictators club, its “evolving international human rights law,” or its predatory “peacekeeping” forces. And to rein in the UN and the high court’s lawless usurpations on marriage and other issues, states should step up nullification efforts.
Photo of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: AP Images