I didn’t visit the website (http://vote.myworld2015.org/), all I did was open my Mozilla Firefox internet browser and got directed automatically.
It appears that the United Nations wants to know what you want and is asking you to vote on the following:
Political Freedoms
Phone and Internet Access
Better Healthcare
Protecting Forests, Rivers and Oceans
Better Transport and Roads
Protection Against Crime and Violence
Freedom from Discrimination and Persecution
Better Job Opportunities
Action Taken on Climate Change
Support for People Who Can’t Work
Reliable Energy at Home
An Honest and Responsive Government
A Good Education
Equality Between Men and Women
Access to Clean Water and Sanitation
Affordable and Nutritious Food
What is your (i.e., the readers’) take on this vote which is requested from the United Nations?
I recently listened to a radio show in which the host sort of advocated the creation of some sort of new law (there is no proposed bill that I am aware of) which would allow US citizens to vote in state and federal elections (including the vote for President) only if their education includes political science, sociology and economics.
I’m not sure that he was proposing that you would need a 4 year degree (or the equivalent of) but I think something more like a test you’d have to pass which would indicate if you were, or weren’t, going to be permitted to vote.
The host also indicated that the ‘elites’ (no names, but point taken) tend to advocate laws which are advantageous and beneficial to those citizens who live in cites (as opposed to rural areas) and that those citizens who live in cities often were proponents or supporters of the laws proposed by the ‘elites’ (no names, but point taken).
In conclusion, the radio host indicated that he believes that the ‘elites’ should, every so often yet on a regular schedule:
a.
Create a number of proposed laws and offer the said proposed laws (a number of options) to the citizens and have them (provided that the citizens are qualified to vote) pick the ones that they like.
b.
Select a number of candidates for state and federal government offices and offer them to the citizens and have them (provided that the citizens are qualified to vote) pick the ones that they like
When I saw the United Nations asking for my vote today it made me remember that radio show discussed in the foregoing.
Btw, speaking of Mozilla Firefox, what do you (i.e., the readers) think of the forced resignation (April, 2014) of Mozilla CEO (and co-founder) Brendan Eich for his refusal to support gay marriage and his $1,000 political donation (2008) to California Proposition 8 (i.e., Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California)
Myself, I don’t really care if gay people get married. In my opinion there are much more important and significant things to contemplate, and goals to achieve, at the state and federal government levels than fighting over issues like who gets to marry and whether or not abortions should or shouldn’t be allowed (I really don’t care about women getting abortions either).
This is how I see the Brendan Eich story:
On one hand, Eich has the right to free speech and association and it seems like a corporation like Mozilla (and especially Mozilla) would stand up for those rights.
On the other hand, people who are opposed to things like gay marriage and abortion also tend to want to control, and dictate with legislation (or advocate such legislation), other areas of life which shouldn’t be prohibited and restrictively dictated by the government. Not exactly the type of guy you want running the internet or a corporation like Mozilla.
However, is it right for Mozilla to force their beliefs on the CEO?
Its a tough one. How do you decide?
I’m not really and truly sure myself.
Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.
On the same website:
Why does my vote matter?
Their answer:
The Abortion Debate: A Reasoned, Scientific Pro-Life Argument
The Humble Libertarian
2/4/2012
Excerpt:
The Abortion/Slavery Parallel
In an 1860 speech to Congress, Stephen A. Douglas said: “We, in those measures, established a great principle, rebuking [this] doctrine of intervention by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in the Territories.” Douglas wanted slavery to remain legal. His argument was not that he liked or believed in slavery, but that he believed in the state’s right to choose.
The concept was called popular sovereignty and enjoyed wide support. The “great principle” Douglas refers to is the state’s right to choose. How many times have you heard apologists for the Confederacy say that the issue was not slavery, but state’s rights? They evaded the issue in the same manner that modern proponents of legalized abortion say that the issue is not abortion, but women’s rights.
See the danger and logical flaws inherent in this line of “reasoning?” Nobody has the right to choose to enslave or murder other human beings. So if unborn children are living humans, then we have no right to take their lives. If they are indeed living human beings, this conclusion is inescapable. The only way to ever logically prove that abortion should be legal is to show scientifically that the unborn are not separate and living human beings or to justify the legalization of murder.
……………………………………………
A Civil Rights Issue for the 21st Century
This is one of the most important civil rights issues facing modern countries today. Similar to the issue of slavery in the 19th century, there is an entire class of people who are being treated as less than human, and the debate hinges on whether or not they are human. Through the sound application of reason and scientific inquiry, it becomes clear that after conception, the unborn are human beings, and that therefore governments should recognize and enforce for them as it should for all human beings, the rights which Nature grants them.
Let me address one more thing: Some people feel like it is futile to continue to have a discourse over the issue of abortion because people feel too strongly about it and have already made up their minds as to what they think. This is wrong. I’ve heard this time and again, and I want to stress that it is in fact only people with this attitude toward an issue who will never change anyone’s minds about it.
People throughout history have changed their minds on social issues. When the United States was new, there was no suffrage or equal rights for women and racial minorities. Almost universally in the United States today, the general populace recognizes that this was wrong and that women and non-whites are entitled to their basic rights as human beings, and the law recognizes it too.
It took many years and decades of struggle involving emotions just as fierce if not more fierce than those surrounding the Pro-Life Movement in the 21st century. But victories for freedom were won and people did change their minds. That is how change happens. …………..
View the complete post at:
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/06/abortion-debate-reasoned-pro-life.html
The photograph of a 20-week old fetus was taken by Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson
Image Credit: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2009/04/lennart-nilsson-14.jpg
First, let me state that I am basically in total agreement with the thoughts and conclusions expressed in the above cited post by ‘The Humble Libertarian”. My wife and I are long-standing, minor financial supporters of the ‘Georgia Right to Life’ organization.
That being said, I MUST SHAMEFULLY ADMIT, because this world is currently in such a damned, tragic, moral mess, that I have lately and reluctantly become rather cynical regarding the issue of abortion.
OF COURSE, no irresponsible, unmarried, teenage girl, for example, has the right to kill an innocent, unborn baby by choosing abortion!
— but then, I must also consider that neither does she have the right to bring that child into the world and then criminally neglect or abuse him or her, or make the child essentially a permanent social burden and financial liability for the responsible citizens of the country.
Maybe we are just better off allowing many of the likely future misfits to be just killed off in the womb! VERY, VERY SAD INDEED.
So — The world-total-control-government crowd of ‘elites’ at the United Nations now wants to know what society benefits we, the masses, most desire to humbly receive.
These benefits would come NOT FROM THE UN FOLKS PERSONALLY OF COURSE, because THEY for the most part don’t actually produce ANYTHING. They would come at the POINT OF A GUN BY LAW from the producing citizens of the benefit receiver’s own countries or preferably and more practically from the producing citizens from other more successful countries in the world!
If you think RADICAL-LEFT FASCISM (now courtesy of the Obama-support crowd) from Washington, DC is bad I assure you that what the UN elites have in mind for us would turn out to be infinitely worse!
Socialism is not about SHARING the wealth, it is all about CONTROLLING the wealth by the 10% or so minority of self-designated elites at the top of the ladder, whose noble (LOL) efforts are severely hindered by the presence of a country’s large middle class.
The UN Vote List:
With the exception of ‘Action Taken on Climate Change’ few people would argue that any of the items on the above list wouldn’t be a desirable goal to achieve.
However, in the majority, they require that, by force of government law, SOMEONE ELSE PROVIDE THESE BENEFITS.
This is very unlike the unalienable rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ described in our Declaration of Independence or the rights enumerated in the ‘Bill of Rights’ of our Constitution:
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/BillofRights.pdf