Statement on Visit to the USA by United Nations Special Rapporteur on extr

Oh No! U. N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights Gets it Wrong.

How dare he say:

“The United States is one of the world’s richest, most powerful and technologically innovative countries; but neither its wealth nor its power nor its technology is being harnessed to address the situation in which 40 million people continue to live in poverty.”

He must be a damn liberal loving Commie basterd. The US need to pull funding from the Commie Basterd United Nations and toss them out of America immediately…

That’s all I’m gonna say...

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533

 

At least 20 million people on poverty row are illegal aliens and refugees

The fact thst they take so much money for education, law enforcement and healthcare, and the jobs they take away from American workers is an important factor in the poverty of the other 20 million

 

We agree there. We should have pulled out of the UN decades ago.

 

A lot of things seem to do that. Seems to be a cornerstone of our economy.

 

Someone from the UN trashes America? Wow, didn't see that coming. LMAO

 

Alston is an alt-left Progressive, adhering to the Globalist One World Global Social Justice agenda.

As such, tearing into the US should be expected.

 

15 million illegals + 15 million mentally ill, reprobate addicts + 5 million career criminals in and out of prison = 35 million. How to solve? Deport illegals and force all welfare recipients to take drug tests. Pee hot? Benefits end instantly. Have another child while on benefits, benefits end instantly. We don't need more illegitimate children to survive as a people, let the chips fall where they may.

Getting the above dregs off the welfare rolls leads to better, more responsive benefits for the true impoverished 5 million, the TINY PERCENTAGE of legitimate poor in the U.S. **** the rest, let them die.

Or listen to the U.N. <snort>

 

Wouldn't it be nice if we stopped our wars, and began spending that money on our own country. Think, then the world would look at how pleasant life is here, the way it did at one time, and we wouldn't have to bully them into submission with our military might - or use blackmail and bribes. They would want to be our friend - like they did at one time.

 

The Globalist One World liberal agenda is ownership by multi national corporations, and the enslavement of everyone else. I don't that's what he was thinking of. He was just stating facts and reality.

 

I agree with your first sentence. After that you went astray - military, blackmail, bribes, friends? Meh.

 

Your suggestion is not lucrative enough for the corrupt elements who run the country.

 

There is not enough money for the truely needy because too many illgal aliens and welfare deadbeats are on the dole

 

What difference does it make whether we're in or not, we invade and occupy whoever doesn't do our bidding anyway. It's only use is that it's a platform for propaganda by Haley who no one believes anyway - but they pretend they do for the money.

 

You seem to have a negative view of almost every thing. It's too bad. The reason we should leave is that the UN is inimical to the U.S. and it makes to sense to support it. To me it is as stupid as giveing money to the palestinians. I can get negative too.

 

The question is why is there so much poverty in the world, because without poverty there wouldn't be migrants, and especially at a time when we can spend trillions on our war machine? Here's the answer:

 

Oh then when nations like Bulgaria, which is the poorest in Europe could have made billions each year on something like Southstream decided to stop the project, and have tens of thousands lose their jobs after a visit by McCain and Biden, it was because the Bulgarians fell in love with them. Get real!

 

Actually, this is a clear case of, "Let me win or I won't play." The UN was created for a specific reason ... a civilized alternative to making war. The US is giving that/those reasons the finger ... instigating war, creating war, waging war without paying heed to any of the war-preventing rules that have been agreed upon by all (including the US) member states. In that way, the US is more of a rogue nation than North Korea or Al Kaida.

 

The man who made the documentary, and who is an EU parliamentarian and has been given many awards for his works, is not allowed to visit the US. When he asked why, they referred him to a paragraph about terrorists and those who support them - even though he has written a great deal against all known terrorist groups, and has never said or done anything in their support. You figure!

 

If so then the UN should throw us out. Same positive result.

 

Bulgarians take orders from McCain and Biden? Get real.

 

I will give you an offer that you cannot refuse. Pure mafia tactics - blackmail, bribery and threats. It's the American way.

 

No, not really. Not unless you're saying the Progressive agenda and movement is simply a cover for multi-national corporations.

It is the objective of Alt-Left Progs like Alston to tear down the US in order to fold it into their OWG plans. It's simply evidence of the collapse of the UN into a meaningless pile of wasted space.

 

When should we have stopped "our" wars? Should we have stood back and let Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have their way?
I'm sure you believe that we should not have fought against the spread of communism. It was working so well in the USSR and China we should have been glad to allow it to spread around the globe and bring all of its great benefits to all people.
And now here we are picking on those nice radical Islamists, you know, the religion of "peace". Why don't we just sit back and let them kill as many people as they feel necessary. I'm sure its all for the greater good - just look at how great life was in any area where they ruled. And if they get nukes, well not to worry, I'm sure it will be only for defensive purposes.

 

Basically.

2. My visit coincides with a dramatic change of direction in US policies relating to inequality and extreme poverty.

If he characterizes poverty as "extreme" (which is highly subjective), how would he characterize the living conditions of the 3 Billion people who have no access to running water or electricity?

3. The United States is one of the world’s richest, most powerful and technologically innovative countries; but neither its wealth nor its power nor its technology is being harnessed to address the situation in which 40 million people continue to live in poverty.

He is misled by the disingenuous way in which federal agencies calculate poverty. The Census Bureau and H&HS only include earned income in their calculations. They do not include cash and non-cash benefits provided by States and the federal government.

He also ignores the reality that since the inception of the war on poverty, the federal government has spent more than $22 TRILLION without any significant changes.

Very obviously, there is a human component to poverty over which government has no control.

4. I have seen and heard a lot over the past two weeks. I met with many people barely surviving on Skid Row in Los Angeles, I witnessed a San Francisco police officer telling a group of homeless people to move on but having no answer when asked where they could move to, I heard how thousands of poor people get minor infraction notices which seem to be intentionally designed to quickly explode into unpayable debt, incarceration, and the replenishment of municipal coffers, I saw sewage filled yards in states where governments don’t consider sanitation facilities to be their responsibility, I saw people who had lost all of their teeth because adult dental care is not covered by the vast majority of programs available to the very poor, I heard about soaring death rates and family and community destruction wrought by prescription and other drug addiction, and I met with people in the South of Puerto Rico living next to a mountain of completely unprotected coal ash which rains down upon them bringing illness, disability and death.

The "homeless" by definition are incompetent and incapable of managing their own lives. Unfortunately, many misinterpret O'Connor v. Donaldson 422 US 563 (1975) to mean the mentally ill cannot be involuntarily hospitalized:

"Now, the purpose of involuntary hospitalization is treatment and not mere custodial care or punishment if a patient is not a danger to himself or others. Without such treatment there is no justification from a constitutional stand-point for continued confinement unless you should also find that [Donaldson] was dangerous to either himself or others."

A plain language interpretation suggests the mentally ill may be hospitalized involuntarily, provided they are also given proper treatment.

It's amazing, really, that there are any "homeless" people at all, given what Liberals preach. The fact that Liberals refuse to practice what they preach, seriously damages their credibility.

It makes a difference with respect to the future prosperity and economic well-being of the US and its Standard of Living.

I personally am impervious to economic upheaval, but the reality is that the vast majority of Americans simply could not deal with a lower Standard of Living.

 

I agree. But I am not aware of any UN clause that considers it. I am also not sure I see from whose perspective you feel the result would be a "positive". Personally, I think it would be to US disadvantage but never mind.