Posted on 03/03/2004 5:59:11 PM PST by RickofEssex
Uprising Against U.N. Grows in States and Congress
WASHINGTON – Threats to U.S. security and sovereignty in recent years have spawned a widening grassroots movement to get the United States out of the United Nations and the United Nations out of the United States. The effort has gained a political respectability it did not always enjoy. A “people’s rebellion” against internationalist elites is coming straight from Heartland America.
Once relegated to the outer fringes of the conservative movement, skepticism of and hostility to the U.N. in recent years are the result of several factors, not the least of which is concern for safety in an increasingly dangerous world.
The war against terror in general, and against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in particular, have caused debate over America’s once assumed right to defend itself without seeking “permission” from the so-called “international community.”
President Bush has been ridiculed in the halls of the United Nations for taking seriously his No. 1 constitutional duty: to protect Americans from harm. Sept. 11 was the wake-up call that brought Americans face to face with the prospect of personal danger. They do not take kindly to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and others who challenge our right to self-defense.
Legislatures in some of the same Rocky Mountain states that rebelled against the excesses of the elitist “environmental” movement a quarter of a century ago are now leading the anti-U.N. charge.
The Utah House of Representatives last month approved a resolution urging Congress to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations.
The measure had been proposed a year ago, but was put on hold while President Bush was unsuccessfully seeking U.N. backing for an invasion of Iraq.
Now in 2004, the Utah House voted 42-33 in favor of “freeing the nation from a large financial burden and retaining the nation’s sovereignty to decide what is best for the nation and determine what steps it considers appropriate as the leader of the free world in full control of its armed forces and destiny.”
The measure has divided the top leadership of the Republican majority in the Utah House.
House Speaker Marty Stephens, who is also a gubernatorial candidate in the Beehive State, voted with the majority, reflecting a popular concern among some conservatives over such issues as “world government” and a global tax.
On the other hand, House Majority Leader Greg Curtis voted against the measure, saying, “I don’t want it to be said, ‘Well, he must not be a conservative, he must not be a true Republican if he doesn’t support this.'”
That Curtis would be defensive about his GOP credentials because of this issue reflects the political reality that the world organization’s approval among the general public, particularly among Republican voters in the 2000 “red states,” has taken a dive in recent years.
The tarnished reputation of the U.N. persists despite the left-tilting establishment’s best efforts to define the issue as something that is “settled” and beyond the boundaries of reasonable debate. But the ranks of the skeptics are growing. Similar anti-U.N. efforts are under way in the legislatures of neighboring states Idaho and Arizona.
On Jan. 17, the chief congressional proponent of the anti-U.N. effort, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, visited Salt Lake City to outline his case for America’s sovereign right to assert its best interests over whatever objections United Nations might have.
Gains in Congress
Last year, Paul’s campaign to free the U.S. of U.N. constraints made a significant leap forward in Congress, though it still lost by a comfortable margin.
In contrast to previous up or down votes on the issue that netted fewer than 40 supporters, a recorded vote on this issue on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on July 22, 2003 garnered 145 votes: 141 Republicans and four Democrats.
Rep. Paul sees that as progress. The final vote against the proposal was 279-145. But just as the left has attained ultimate victories by revisiting its issues year after year, so too does the Texas lawmaker intend to apply the same strategy here.
Paul's spokesman Jeff Deist told NewsMax.com that timing was of the utmost significance in this latest vote. The proposal picked up support because of resentment over the anti-U.S. rhetoric in the U.N. General Assembly, which intensified with the run-up to the war with Iraq. Also, unlike previous measures, this vote, on an amendment to an appropriations bill, merely called on the U.S. to cease all funding for the United Nations. It stopped short of calling for outright withdrawal. The idea is to advance the cause in steps.
Included among those favoring Paul's amendment were such heavy hitters as House Majority leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill.; and Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., best known for his bipartisan probe several years ago of communist China's espionage in the U.S.
The resentment against the United Nations did not develop in this country overnight. It has been building up for years. NewsMax has been following that every step of the way. We’ll take a closer look next in our second of two installments.
United Nations One World Religion
U.N. Would Rule World’s Children
After clicking on and studying the above links, one has to ask. WHAT TOOK SO DAMN LONG?
Go Ron!
HELL would be more appropriate
That is exactly what the South thought over a 140 years ago and we all know what happened afterwards.
It's nothing compared to the Convention on Nature Protection, passed in 1941, which was ratified before there was a UN. Anyone who thinks there wasn't a conspiracy involved should note that the treaty was passed with no recorded votes in either committee or the full Senate, no record of any debate, and was described to the Senate in a cover letter in a manner that falsified its scope (thank you Cordell Hull). The treaty was not attached to the ESA until 1983, if memory serves.
farmfriend, while I wouldn't argue that ESA is an abomination my search is for what is happening with the Law of the Seas (LOST) treaty. The ramifications of it will make ESA seem like some nuisance "helmet law." See the article linked in post #19.
LOL! I was wondering when someone would make that comparison.
Difference is the South attempted to secede from a sovereign nation which had assets, such as; people, money, territory, armed forces, etc. The UN has nothing and is nothing.
For an organization created to impove the lot of humanity through statesmanship, all the UN has done is protect barbarism. Charles Hill recently had a fine article on the fate of the UN published in the Hoover Digest. It can be found here:
Enjoy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.