A mal-intent may be removed from Congreff by a vote of 2/3 of his fellow thieves http://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/ee067ba0-db71-4394-9a37-453316aeb453.pdf

UDHR at the United Nations: Is this not law? is it not legally binding in court? that is what wikipedia says, but it looks to me like Law????
UDHR Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
but wikipedia says..... 2nd paragraph
".....thirty articles which, although not legally binding......."
Well if it is not legally binding? What is?

My Opinion: The government really has to grow up AND get some education in the social sciences, no one ever took Sociology 101 or Anthro 101 or Psych 101 else Congreff would not behave like that, no education.

for instance

UDHR Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

While some people in Congreff want to be able to fire women who had children out of wedlock, grow up, people like that should not be in government

Give people rights then take the rights back right away is not cool, in fact its another attempt to violate UDHR in this case Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Just think in terms of UDHR for a few minutes, while considering what is going on in the Republican Party for a few years now, they are challenging every aspect of UDHR trying to tear it down, when its already signed for