For Hillary Clinton, the UN remains a useful instrument to advance her “progressive internationalist” agenda

Hillary Clinton Uses the UN to Advance her Progressive Globalist Agenda

Hillary Clinton is planning to hold “a number of bilateral meetings” during this week’s gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where climate change and the rights of migrants and refugees will top the agenda. Hillary loves the United Nations. She said while serving in the Senate, for example, that “a strong United Nations is in America’s interest.” As Secretary of State, she declared that the UN “remains the single most important global institution.” She added, “We are constantly reminded of its value.” The UN’s value to Hillary, however, requires this organization of sovereign states to overstep the limitation on its authority set out in the United Nations Charter. The UN Charter specifically stipulates that the UN is not allowed to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” Globalists like Hillary Clinton have sought to use the UN and its endless whirl of global forums, summits, and treaties to advance what Hillary has called “progressive internationalism.”

Only too happy to oblige, the UN bureaucracy has poked deeply into issues traditionally associated with the internal affairs of each member nation, including parents’ authority over their children, gun control and the terms under which each nation decides the terms under which to admit foreign individuals from outside its borders. Hillary illustrated her view of the UN as an instrument of global governance when, as First Lady, she lauded the late CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whom had just received an award from the one world government advocacy group, the World Federalist Association. Cronkite declared in his remarks at the event held at the United Nations headquarters in New York that “we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce.” After Cronkite concluded his remarks, Hillary Clinton referred to Cronkite as “no better captain that I can imagine” to “sail across the unnavigated seas of the 21st century.” She added, “For decades you told us ‘the way it is,’ but tonight we honor you for fighting for the way it could be.” Here are just a few examples of the “progressive internationalism” leading potentially to Walter Cronkite’s vision of “a world government” that Hillary Clinton found, in her words, so “inspiring”: I. It takes the UN global village to divide child from parent Hillary Clinton said at a campaign event on September 15th that “Standing up for children has been the work of my life.” Perhaps, but during the course of her career she has put down stay-at-home moms and supported the anti-parent UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which her husband signed as president. This treaty potentially pits children against their parents. Irrespective of the child’s age, parents would not have the final say on their child’s access to materials the parents find to be morally offensive. Children are empowered to bring their parents to court if they are denied the legal right granted by the UN treaty “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.” Hillary Clinton’s idea of “progressive internationalism” includes inserting the United Nations and the state between parent and child. Hillary Clinton’s unwillingness to leave parents alone in raising their children goes way back. In her 1979 book Children’s Rights: Contemporary Perspectives, Hillary wrote: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment & others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents.” In Hillary’s 1970s Harvard Educational Review article “Children Under the Law,” she actually compared the idea of parents exercising ultimate authority over their dependent children to slavery.

II. Global gun control norms supersede the Second Amendment Hillary Clinton supported and helped negotiate the UN Arms Trade Treaty that her successor John Kerry signed as Secretary of State. This treaty represented the first step in maintaining a firearms “control list” registry, which would be subject to sharing with the UN and other state parties. “Guns, in and of themselves, will not make Americans safer,” Hillary declared during a Democratic presidential primary debate last year. “Arming more people is not appropriate response to terrorism.” Given this mindset, it is not surprising that Hillary viewed Australia’s firearms confiscation as a “good example,” which she considered “worth looking at” when formulating U.S. gun control policy. Hillary liked the way Australia “clamped down going forward” on gun ownership. As reported by Business Insider journalist Christina Sterbenz, Australia’s legislation required “all firearm-license applicants to show ‘genuine reason’ for owning a gun, which couldn’t include self-defense.” III. Religious beliefs must yield to secular progressive ideology Speaking at the Women in the World Summit in New York last year, Hillary Clinton said that in order to fully secure the reproductive rights of women, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she encouraged the United Nations’ push for treating the gay, lesbian and transgender agenda as a matter of universal human rights. She declared in her speech at the United Nations in Geneva that perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.” In Hillary’s upside down view of the world, a photographer with deeply held religious beliefs regarding same sex marriage, who conscientiously objects to being compelled to associate himself or herself with a gay or lesbian wedding by having to comply with a request to photograph it, is just as bad as an individual who cites his or her Muslim beliefs as justification for committing an honor killing.

IV. Open the U.S. to many more Middle Eastern refugees One year ago, Hillary Clinton called for the United Nations to hold an “emergency global gathering where the U.N. literally tries to get commitments” to admit more Syrian refugees. “I obviously want the United States to do our part.” She added that “this is an international problem that demands an international response. The United States must help lead that response.” This week the United Nations is taking up Hillary’s suggestion by holding two days of summit meetings on refugees and migrants. On the second day, Hillary’s former boss, Barack Obama, is hosting a “Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis.” Its purpose, according to the State Department, is, among other things, “to galvanize significant new global commitments to…admit more refugees through resettlement or other legal pathways.” As president, Hillary Clinton can be expected to expand the UN’s role even further in pushing countries to admit more refugees and migrants, irrespective of risks and costs, with the U.S. leading the way. She has already called for admitting for resettlement, in towns and cities throughout the United States, at least 65,000 Syrian refugees annually – a 500 percent increase over Obama’s already irresponsible level. She would do so despite the serious risks to Americans posed by refugees from terrorist infested areas whom are incapable of being robustly vetted, and despite the huge additional estimated lifetime costs at the federal, state and local level. It is past time that we change the terms of debate in our national conversation concerning the proper definition of multilateralism, including the proper role for the United Nations. Too often we hear the fallacious argument that to support the principle of multilateralism one must wholeheartedly support the United Nations as its most legitimate manifestation. The United Nations is obviously the largest multilateral institution in the world since its membership spans the globe. But in some instances, its very size—and its large number of autocratic member states—are handicaps because they dilute a sense of common purpose at a level that really means something and result in actions or inactions at the UN that contradict its founding principles. However, for Hillary Clinton this does not really matter so long as the UN remains a useful instrument to advance her “progressive internationalist” agenda.



{/exp:ce_cache:it}