US human rights
 

The Obama administration is participating in a UN self-assessment survey of human rights in America.

The Bush administration would not participate in this human rights self-assessment. The three countries reviewing the US's self-assessement are the universal periodic review board members France, Japan and Cameroon.

Cameroon is one of 13 countries on the 47-member UN Human Rights Committee that are ranked “not free” by democracy watchdog Freedom House based on its political freedoms and civil liberties.

Also, Cameroon is one of 18 council members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference. This group, who Obama has agreed to allow to judge the US's human rights, has an agenda at the HRC characterized by a strong anti-Israel bias and attempts to outlaw religious “defamation.”

The Obama report for the UN review was put together by federal agencies and civil society organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Human Rights First. These groups met between Jan. and April of this year and wanted to take the critique of the US further but were limited by the UN guidelines.

You have to read through the report to believe how racist and horrible the US really is in the eyes of these groups who put the report together. But according to the report, Obama has done what he can so far, and is doing all he can now and in the future to remedy America's wrongs.

It is all laid out in this document of self-assessment at our ongoing progress and failures to achieving human rights in America. The Progressive/socialist agenda complete with quotes by Progressive President Teddy Roosevelt and Eleanor, the controversial Universal Declaration of Human Rights, discussions on distribution of wealth, how discriminatin in housing caused the latest financial collapse, universal healthcare, immigration reform (not enforcing current laws), it goes on and on about our sins.



http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/71514

"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."





http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.ph...tcom&buid=3281

Huh? The UN wants a report and something thinks it's offensive that our laws PRINTED FOR ALL TO SEE are reviewed? What, suddenly the UN isn't allowed to comment? (I grant you, many of there comments are silly and worthy of being ignored)

Ummm - does that person realize this will be another largely-ignored UN report with no authority to do actually DO anything?

Think for a moment of the flip side... Secret laws, published where only 'the right people' can see...

I remember the mighty un hard hats idly sitting by and watching the massacre in rwanda, yep the un is a great organization

Is it true
 

The UN Members are primarily corrupt leaders and dictators and nearly every one of them is against the USA and capitalism?

The UN is a political farce way past it's time.
 

Nothing more than an expensive stage for guys like Almadinanutjob and others like him.

btk

You'll get no argument from me. UN forces didn't quell the violence in the former Yugoslavia - NATO forces did.

When you can have tin-pot dictators serving on human rights committees it's just one of many examples of the character of the institution.

Can anyone name an institution with a bigger gulf between it's ideals and effectiveness than the UN? I mean, it's like you can mention any political problem you have with any party, NGO, country or whatever - but whatever that problem is, you'll find it worse in the UN.