I was expecting a shuffle response from you.
Who was President on 05/23/2001? Not his Daddy! This is a subject that I am well versed on. Here are some more tidbits that I'd like you to explain.
Now remember.
If one Party, say the Republicans was against the NWO, we would be hearing about it all the time from them. The fact is both Party's are silent on the subject.
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court & Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
The purpose of his meeting with the court is not known but the United Nations is the depository of international treaties. Decisions by its 15- member U.N. Security Council provide a basis for international law.
Did the meeting have any effects on the Supreme Court?
O'Connor: U.S. must rely on foreign law (October 31, 2003)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011956/posts
Who jumped to the head of the line with this proposal on 03/16/2004
US Proposal For $1.2 Billion Loan To Finance Capital Master Plan- to refurb UN HQ
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1099178/posts
President Bush Places U.S. Troops Under A Foreign U.N. Commander
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/778684/posts
Bush OKs $606 Million to Fund UN Standing Army
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1158301/posts
B4Ranch way to go, tell it like it is
The latest reports indicate that the United States is trying to buy a U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq by bribing members of the council, including Russia and France, and cutting them in on oil deals with a new Iraqi regime. On Meet the Press on September 15th, however, host Tim Russert suggested a different kind of deal – paying the United Nations $250 million to get favorable action from the world body. Interviewing Secretary of State Colin Powell, Russert said, "Would it help us in the United Nations in terms of negotiations if the U.S. paid the $250 million we still owe the U.N.?" Powell replied that the U.S. "fully intends to meet all of its outstanding obligations."
Powell is a long-time U.N. booster who believes in the concept of a so-called U.S. financial "debt" to the U.N. Russert believes that as well, and his question may have been prompted by ads appearing in such publications as The Weekly Standard urging the U.S. to fulfill a "promise" to the world body and pay "overdue U.N. bills." The Congress passed legislation to pay the money if the U.N. accepted certain reforms of its operations, such as dropping efforts to promote global taxes and create a standing U.N. world army.
The U.N. hasn’t discontinued those efforts, which is itself a story ignored by the media. But the other part of the debate not covered by Tim Russert is the substantial number of members of Congress who didn’t believe we had a debt to the U.N. to begin with. Nearly 200 members once voted for Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s "U.N. Erroneous Debt Act," which asserted that the world body had a financial debt to the U.S. because of extra U.S. financial contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Evidence from a report of the General Accounting Office reveals that, during fiscal years 1996 to 2001, the U.S. directly contributed an estimated $3.5 billion to support U.N. military operations. Indirect U.S. contributions that benefitted U.N. peacekeeping were estimated at $24 billion during this period. Most of that support was taken out of the Pentagon budget. That’s money never credited to the U.S. account at the U.N. by a world body that accused America of being a "deadbeat" nation in paying our so-called "dues." The GAO said the largest U.S. contribution was to the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission to deter Iraqi aggression. This cost DoD an estimated $6 billion from 1996 through 2001.
Russert apparently forgot that we still have 37,000 troops in South Korea. They are there under U.N. Security Council Resolutions dating back to 1950, by which the United States leads the United Nations Command.
South Korean financial support for U.S. troops has reached more than $700 million annually. But it is estimated that the U.S. also spends between $13 billion and $20 billion annually to defend South Korea [on behalf of the U.N.] The U.N. doesn’t pick up a dime. Next time, Tim Russert should take note of all of the facts before claiming the U.S. is stiffing the U.N. financially.