The UN is worse than useless. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, except for Article 29.3, is a well crafted document that outlines rights, the vast majority of which are completely compatible with the Constitution of the United States. Actually, 23 of the 30 articles had already been incorporated into the 1940 Constitution of Cuba, which was an advanced democratic society, until takeover by communists in 1959, having economic prosperity on a par with the United States, along with just social programs that exceeded any of the empty boasts of the current regime. The UN today is presided over by the worst abusers of human rights on the planet. It wastes our contributions, undermines our society, and seeks its destruction, not because it was designed to do so but because it is run by Marxists, terrorists, thieves, and totalitarians.

We shall have one world government, through divine intervention, not ruled by men.

Regarding Article21.2, what is your point? The question is not what those services are to be, but that all have equal access. Is something unacceptable with that? Regarding Article 22, what specifically do you object to here? There is only a guarantee of equal rights, not a specific imposition of values of another. Regarding Article 23.1, do you seriously oppose laws that protect workers' rights, or feel that workers have none? Regarding Article 24, don't you know that 2 billion people are slaves? Regarding Article 25, millions are prohibitedfrom work solely because they do not support the regimes that control their nation. Regarding Article 26, education is unavailable to billions, often due to government mismanagement of public revenues. Most founders of the United States agreed with the education of the public. Nothing is free. Regarding Article 27, your question does not refute the right. Regarding Article 28, it has no meaning different than that for which we have institutions that are supposed to enforce laws and standards. Regarding Article 29.1, it does not propose what you insinuate, and remains true. Regarding Article 29.2, it merely expresses that we should be protected against unreasonable obligations. I do not agree with a couple of the Articles in question, Article 29.3, for example, which encompasses purposes not related to the rights outlined in the Declaration itself; and Article 23 leaves some questions unresolved. But overall and overwhelmingly that which is proposed by the Declaration is very resonable, and is not overtly an imposition of values not already included in the Constitution of the United States.

(1) E. Archer: Name one of the Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are government entitlements. You wrote: "Many of the rights in the Declaration of Human Rights are government entitlements," so name one. (2) I wrote that the condition for maintaining the proposed alliance (not membership in a confederation) would be strict adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; including a clear message to potential violators in the written treaty, of what the results would be of the violation of the conditions, would leave no doubt as to the legitimate cause of dissolution of the alliance. (3) Logan: We have no alliance with the regimes in China, Cuba, or several other dictatorships, but the degree of commerce engaged in with them clearly reflects a friendship. We are salleged to have an embargo against Cuba, but are Cuba's 11th greatest trading partner. We support tyranny.

Altruism is always voluntary. When giving is forced, it is not altruism. Altruism can only be an individualistic act, not a group act. But what does altruism have to do with this quote?

Ultimately there will be consensus that mankind cannot govern itself.

At the time these words were expressed, George Washington's policy made sense. They do not make sense for today. The United States should form strong alliances with any nation that truly supports the Universal Declaraton of Human Rights, for as long as that nation does so. More than 2 billion people now struggle to survive nder totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships. The growing alliances and collaboration among these terrorists is a serious threat to every nation that wishes to enjoy freedom. The United States cannot be beaten, but it could be destroyed, if it turns its back on the oppressed peoples of the world. There is no good thing to be gained by our total political isolation.

This is based on the erroneous combination of ideas that war, conflict, strife, crimes, abuses, and disunity could be ended by disarming us (us, not them) and that the Marxists could take us over by taking away our weapons.

Despite the ratification of the universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN is as corrupt as any governing body, and does not seem about to do that for which it was created, but instead seems to promote the opposite. The UN is worse than useless.

And of course all the constitutionalists, militias, gun manufacturers, NRA members, and other supporters of the Second Amendment are lining up in droves to hand over their weapons and put on their chains. Frankly, I do not know whether I could actually shoot someone. Nevertheless, I think the time has come to purchase my first AK-47.

Gandhi condemned the disarming of Indians by the British as the "blackest misdeed". He was against tyranny, not against the use of arms to end it.

As a FIRST step, America should ban communism as a political party, permitting discussion of it only in the theoretical sense, and prohibiting its participation in political venues.

All senators should be checked for brain damage.

Janet Reno was and is a nazi. She worked under Clinton, agrees with Lenin, and killed liked Osama.

Well, at least we can shoot back before they skin us alive. : )

Bill Clinton agreed with Lenin on this issue. No kidding. See his quotes.

Another clear-thinking founder.

Sarah Brady, Arms quote: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Jefferson was not the only founder to voice such an opinion. Whether he actually said this or not makes no difference. It remains true.

Less than 2,000 die each year due to acceidental shootings. About 100,000 die each year due to accidents of medical negligence. Ban doctors.

And did no one notice that the grammar used by Wedgwood is incorrect? "Men must have the right of choice, even to choose wrong, if THEYshall ever learn to choose right," would be correct. Men are not tried in courts as groups, but as individuals, and are punished individually. They do not choose at all, but each one of them chooses individually. Even when one goes along with group behavior, it is the result of an individual's decision to act a certain way. (See act vi, one of the definitions of which is to behave.)

Joe: I do not care whether you call me a simpleton, but do not call me a socialist. Karl Marx said, "My objective in life is to dethrone God and to destroy capitalism." He also wrote that the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism. Both ideas are repugnant, as is forcing people to work as much as possible but only get paid the same as the one who works little. Socialism as practiced historically has npot always been totalitarianistic, but it certainly has not been just. As for the First Amendment, it deals with several issues apart from religion, or had you not noticed?

The right to choose is accompanied by the responsibility to choose correctly. You wish to avoid tyranny so badly that you opt for chaos. Congratulations. You are going to get it.

Your sophism is limitless. I guess you are not going to define to act and to behave. You are skirting the issue raised by yourself, and refusing to respond to reason, calling it something else. Drug abuse is inarguably linked to criminality. Criminality not linked to drug abuse has nothing to do with my point. People have a right to define their society, which is why society labels as criminal a wide range of acts/behaviors. That these sometimes change over time does not negate that the crime is a crime.

He never read the First Amendment?