As long as the UN exists, we have to be on the inside to exert influence and have a say-so. Same thing with unions, academia, the bureaucracy, etc. Right Flight is wishful and dangerous thinking.
As much as we like to think the UN is irrelevant, you should know that many many schools across the country have UN clubs, send students to the model UN (and not the model Congress) and are brainwashing the kids to think they are global citizens and the US should be subservient to the UN.
The UN defenders in my county literally froth at the mouth and viciously attack if a loyal US citizen speaks out against the UN and the atrocities it has committed.
The UN is UNamerican. I hate it. I see it as a looming noose around everyones neck, someday. Send it to Brussels, so that the EU crowd can feel like they make a difference.
I'll bump this thread till my last breathe but it will never happen.
"Every child is our child."
-- Motto of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."
Brock Chisolm, when director of UN World Health Organisation
1948 -- UNESCO president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He states: "Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
• "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Bush Says YES to UNESCO
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/19/153742.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,791354,00.html
United Nations: Don't Smack Your Child
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2297821.stm
Your UNICEF dollars at work
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27627
The New World Religion
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/09-23-2002/vo18no19_religion.htm
U.N. land grab in the works
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29260
http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0036.html
Speak Up for Sovereignty and Patriotism!
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/jan97/psrjan97.html
The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie, Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government ... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal ..." Almost all of the UN's "independent" commissions for the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist International.
Dueling Vetoes
John L. Perry
Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2003
"Veto" is Latin for "I forbid."
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States each may forbid any United Nations action. Now, countervailing vetoes loom.That is another way of saying the United Nations is at long last well on its way to the ash heap of history.Which is another way of saying all of this is good news, not calamity, for the United States, for the entire Free World and for those peoples struggling under the yokes of dictatorships to become members of the Free World.
Enforce or Ignore?The present veto issue is over whether the U.N. Security Council will adopt yet another resolution - requiring once and for all time Iraq's forthwith compliance with a long string of 17 previous resolutions - demanding full disclosure and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.As it is now shaping up, the United States, in close cooperation with the United Kingdom, is expected to sponsor such a resolution within the 15-member Security Council, whose five permanent members enjoy the power of veto.One of those five, France, with the connivance of non-veto-toting Germany, is poised to sponsor a resolution aimed at preventing just such a compliance resolution. Those two will have the support of recently communist Russia and currently communist China, both of which have veto power.
Greed and AggrandizementThey are that determined, for their own reasons of selfish economic and political enhancement, to keep the regime of Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.A historic collision is about to occur. Consider the implications:
If the Security Council takes up the U.S.-U.K. resolution first, the factotums of France and Germany - with those of Russia and China dog-trotting alongside - are confronted with three options:
(a) Go along with a "yes" vote, which would cause them to have to execute a hairpin reversal of course with all the attendant embarrassing consequences domestically and internationally;
(b) Abstain, which would cost them equivalent humiliation at home and elsewhere, since even the bumfuzzled value a certain degree of constancy in their leadership, or
(c) Veto the U.S.-U.K. resolution, which would place them irreconcilably at odds with America and its allies, who far outnumber them.
On the other hand, if the French and Germans are the first to offer their resolution, which would litter the Iraqi landscape with U.N. "inspections" bureaucracies and dot the sky over Iraq with French and Russian "surveillance" aircraft, here are the options confronting the United States and the United Kingdom:
(a) President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair could approve its adoption, about as likely as either one resigning from office, which is what a complete reversal of their positions would honorably call for;
(b) Abstain, a posture leaving those two as emasculated impotents adrift on the world scene, at the whim of the likes of France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria and on and on, or
(c) Exercise the veto, which would cut the American alliance free of the baleful influence of Old Europe, but also thrust it face to face with the loonies of radical Islam and the always-sinister and rapidly developing People's Republic of China - an inevitable confrontation incalculably more expensive later on.
Those consequences range far beyond the immediate issue of how to treat with Iraq's malevolent tyrant. They will cast the mold for the reconfiguration of economic relationships, political alignments and military deployments of world powers for decades to come.This a most-sobering reality. Either way the cat jumps, it constitutes nothing less than the most fundamental upheaval since the onset of the Cold War in the wake of World War II.Nothing like this has come along since the now-defunct Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin gambled on possible nuclear annihilation to subjugate the United States and all it represents.
The Threat Was Well Known
That came at a time when the United States was victorious in World War II and there was widespread appreciation among the American people of the mortal danger the Soviet Union represented.The greatest peril implicit in this present crisis - which neatly fits the Japanese dual ideogram for danger combined with opportunity - is that millions of Americans still don't get it.Much of that disconnect from reality can be laid at the door of American elitist, leftist mass communications and eight years of unethical leadership and neglect by the Clinton administration that those media so gleefully celebrated - and now so vengefully mourn.
Blind Self-AbsorptionA staggering number of Americans remain, even post-Sept. 11, in a combination state of denial of the horrific danger pressing upon them and smug preoccupation with personal pleasures and distractions.That is many times more unsettling than whether the latest surveys of opinions purport to show that most of the rest of the world's population is not on America's side in this time of peril.The courageous leadership of Bush and Blair, who have not allowed opinion polls to blind their perception of their duty, will go down in history alongside that of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Train Wreck AheadSo what happens if, as seems likely, the two headlong opposing resolutions work their way up to a vote in the Security Council after every other U.N. member state has been given face time on world television to do its posturing?Despite strenuous efforts now being made to mush together some sort of face-saving compromise resolution, it seems humanly impossible that, in the end, the two opposing camps can avoid having to split. Each side has gone too far to double back on itself.As Bush has promised, should the Security Council chicken out on its responsibility, the United States will lead a Coalition of the Willing - impressive in number and strength - to liberate the people of Iraq and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Taking the Time to Ramp UpAny passage of days between now and then will be occasioned not by the grant of more time for U.N. inspectors but by the arrival on station of that fourth U.S. carrier battle group and the ominous thud of the final platoon's boots hitting the ground.At that point, there goes the United Nations. Why is that?The answer lies in the history behind the founding of the United Nations as World War II was coming to a close.That awful conflict was won by the wartime unity of the Big Three - as Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States were known then. The concept was that post-war peace could be maintained only if the Big Three remained in effective unanimity.
Antiquated VetoThe veto was grafted into the U.N. Charter to make that _expression of Big Three unity possible, by ensuring the impotence of the United Nations if any one of the Big Three was willing to precipitate its collapse through exercise of the veto.That made sense only if Big Three unity persisted, which of course it didn't. Even before World War II ended, even before the United Nations came into being, Big Three unity was falling apart.In actuality, the United Nations as an effective instrument of international cooperation and peacekeeping was stillborn.
Disunited From the Get-GoWhat did emerge and has hung on by a thread ever since is not a United Nations, but a hopelessly Disunited Nations - as illustrated by the numerous vetoes cast by the Soviet Union.An effective, relevant United Nations has been flat-line brain-dead these nearly 60 years, and what the world is now witnessing are the terminal twitchings of its prolonged state of artificially suspended animation.The very idea of the United States, or any country, thinking it had to go to such a United Nations with hat in hand and obtain approval to do what has to be done to protect its own people's vital national interests has been a dirty joke all these long years.So now, in the impending Shootout at the East River Glass Corral, two principals on the misnamed Security Council are about to fire veto bullets at each other. The current world economic, political and military realities are such that America and its allies will win that duel.
A Demise to CelebrateThe United States and the United Kingdom will walk away. France and Germany will not perish, although they will be grievously wounded, lingering as cripples for generations.But lying lifeless on New York's East Side, in form as well as in substance, will be what once had the presumption to call itself the United Nations.No need for grieving over that. The Free World will be the better for it.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents
The UN is Communist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/763809/posts
Flower Child Fascism
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ac3d9b55fec.htm
The UN Plan For Your Mental Health
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/MentalHealth2-99.html
The UN's Global Malfeasance
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/deweese/20030219.htm
Kofi Anan, Bigot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/801874/posts
UNICEF
United Nations International Children's Fund
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/unicef/index.html
List of Communist Organizations Operating in US.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828445/posts
Let's Quit the UN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837196/posts
UNICEF and Halloween--Vatican Halts Payment
http://www.knightsite.com/kc9496/unborn25.htm
UN charter deserves the dustbin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710421/posts
Ushering One-World Religion, CBN News
http://www.cbn.org/cbnnews%2Fnews%2F021023a%2Easp
Child Sex Book Given out at UN Summit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/681145/posts
What's UNESCO Good For?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/754948/posts
Who Created the United Nations? Communists!
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a00f5fb38b0.htm
New World Order Rising? - Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743512/posts
United Nations-Sustainable Development
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21text.htm
A U.S. Senator Rebukes the U.N. - WHY?
http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/jun00/helms.htm
Erasing Our Boarders
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/671826/posts
A Choronological History of the New World Order
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2aa8747413.htm
"STATE OF THE WORLD FORUM" TO ADVANCE "GLOBAL GOVERNANCE" FOR EVERYONE
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3991067719db.htm
Bilderberg group wants vigorous Atlantic alliance / REUTERS IN A RARE INTERVIEW
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b11d27a10c5.htm
Deliberately dumbing us down (Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3846d8ab444a.htm
History of the New World Order in the 20th Century
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39a999294ef9.htm
Info on the FED - Rockefeller Shadow Government
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3806a2f37c94.htm
MASTERLINK TO FREE REPUBLIC EDUCATION THREADS (#6)
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a385bf3644986.htm
The United Nations’ Grab for Power
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39cab9547190.htm
Who Is Running America?
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a392ef408565b.htm
POPE COULD FACE CHARGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/feb/02021201.html
RADICAL FEMINISTS LAUD INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/mar/00030905.html
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SAYS POPE GUILTY OF "WAR" AGAINST WOMEN
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jun/00063005.html
Global Criminal Court Starts March 14, 2003
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030311/80/dv535.htmlBirchers have been calling for the U.S. to get out of the UN for a long time. I guess nobody was listening.
I posted this on another thread. Reposted for information.
Let's see. There are 191 member states in the United Nations and it was chartered in 1945. That's 58 years on American soil. If they each took a turn hosting the morans, it would return to the US in about 11,078 years. Now that seems fair.
We could also improve our spy network with the rotation.
