Where is the United Nations now?
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one’s opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The full text is published by the United Nations on its website. The Declaration consists of thirty articles which, although not legally binding, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws.
During World War II, the Allies adopted the Four Freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want—as their basic war aims. The United Nations Charter “reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person” and committed all member states to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
As for me, this information appears to be phenomenal. Especially when the United Nations was in its infancy and through President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiating these fundamental human rights, it would appear as though the left got a much earlier start than even before imagined.
However, in an attempt to make this an argumentative essay, where is the United Nations now? For example it seems as though anytime that the United States makes even a cursive decision to do anything ⸻ and please for our international readers this is by no means an attempt at taking a shot at your country ⸻ even if the decision is controversial, must those who are American be selected to view flag burning exercises, or characters of their political leaders somehow burnt, or maimed in some way?
What I am saying is that to tout various human rights freedoms with the backing of the U.N. to me is ludicrous! In very recent history, the world has seen genocide, flag burning, and soldiers from almost every nation on earth spilling blood for what should have been stopped by sanctions.
Now anyone please ask me why I flat out don’t ascribe to Hillary Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s ideals about becoming a borderless nation, that is, buy into this notion of globalism. Making it short, one maybe two nations will be left holding the mess brought to our shores by globalism.
Putting an end to this argumentative essay goes like this. Just like illegal immigration, refugee and asylum seekers, accepting people with no comprehension of American governance or American jurisprudence, including those clowns who somehow inherited their citizenship ⸻ just as President Thomas Jefferson stated, “For those who accept these rights, should always show caring or compassion when one uses them.”
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, the U.S. Supreme Court with Congress beforehand, and any political leader should not accept national flag burning as a freedom of speech, expression, or otherwise.