Alert reader freedom2learn wrote in regarding the participation of the U.S. in the abysmal, despotic collection of thugs and tyrants known as the United Nations...
Does the US want the UN having (increasing) power that we have no control over at all?
When did the US get involved with
Was this woman's story[Teddy Bear named Mohammed] highly publicized?
Firstly, the U.S. signed on to the UN in San Francisco in 1945 following the end of WWII, along with all the other countries. It was devised as a collective body to diffuse conflicts between countries before they erupt into world war. It's a nice concept if that's all it did, but you and I know better. Let's assume for a minute that countries were willing to surrender their sovereignty to the UN, which we won't do but just for argument's sake, the UN resolutions are non-binding, meaning you don't have to comply if you don't want to. Without the teeth of enforcement, what's the point? Gulf wars I and II were begun because the US had to be the teeth of enforcement on behalf of the UN. And we were willing to be the teeth of the UN because it was America the terrorists were/are targeting. Over the years the UN has devolved into a bickering collection of self-serving representatives who're corrupt to the core. The Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, the largest scandal in the history of the world in terms of dollars, was administered by Kofi Annan himself, his son, the French, Germans, and others at the UN. Yet the US taxpayer continues to be mugged into underwriting the activities of the crooks under UN protection.
To answer the first question: if you are a multinationalist like Hillary and other democrats, you think the U.S. is too powerful and it's not fair that we are so rich and others are so poor by comparison. The idea of a world government overseeing a socialist utopia in which wealth is taken from those who earn it and given to other countries who didn't, is the stuff of your fondest dreams. In short, yes, liberals would cede sovereignty of the US over to the UN and would submit to it's will. The thought of that makes me vomit a little bit in my mouth. It should do that for anyone who truly loves this country.
Question 3: She was arrested a few months ago but the story didn't reach the news services until her sentence was announced. Curiously, the biggest defenders of womens' rights, N.O.W., is refusing to even comment on it. For the same reason Pat Ireland and the gals over at NOW sided with Bill Clinton in the face of multiple rape and harrassment accusations by numerous women, politics is the true trump card for feminists, not womens' rights. Right now, Muslims are the darlings of the media and as such, they can do no wrong. Just like Bill Clinton, as long as he advanced the abortion agenda, he could/and did literally get away with rape in the eyes of the gals at NOW.
I hope that helped freedom.