Posted on 11/20/2004 1:18:35 PM PST by wagglebee
Every day, a new outrage emerges from the United Nations bureaucracy. Kofi Annan, once known for his deliberate, even-handed diplomacy, now openly condemns the United States' action in Iraq as "illegal." He is offended that the U.S. expects accountability in the oil-for-food scandal and refuses to open the books for independent review. The corruption erupting from this single program eclipses the intrigue that is inherent throughout the United Nations system.
For years, individuals and organizations have warned that the United Nations is implementing an agenda that ultimately leads to total global control. These warnings have been discounted by the media and ridiculed by the "enlightened" as the blathering of "black helicopter conspiracy freaks."
Putting aside, for the moment, the U.N.'s agenda, the blatant corruption, deceit and open opposition to all things American, combined with the U.N.'s consistent failure to stop the slaughter of refugees in the Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia and elsewhere around the globe should have Americans asking their congressmen why we continue to support this institution.
What exactly does the United States get for the billions of dollars invested every year in the hundreds of U.N. agencies around the world?
We get slapped in the face by the U.N. Security Council, whose members didn't want to disturb their profitable, private arrangements with Saddam's oil-for-food program.
We get booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and replaced by nations whose human rights practices are among the world's worst.
We get harangued at every U.N. meeting by people who blame the United States for the world's poverty, for global warming and environmental degradation, and worst of all, for supporting Israel.
There is virtually no benefit derived from U.N. membership that is not readily available outside the U.N. through bi-lateral negotiations – for less cost and much less grief.
President Bush has indicated rather strongly that his patience with the U.N. has limits. He has also indicated his willingness to work with the U.N. in some areas, such as UNESCO. This position is confusing, particularly to conservatives. It could be interpreted as the president's effort to be engaged in the international community, but not bound by it.
The United States cannot build new walls of isolation or withdraw from the international community. The opposite must happen; the United States should reach out to other nations and offer a hand of friendship to all nations that share our values of freedom, individual rights and representative government. The United Nations is not needed for this outreach. The United Nations is not needed at all.
Why not get rid of it?
The new Congress that convenes in January could adopt Rep. Ron Paul's proposal to completely withdraw from the U.N. Every year this bill has been introduced, it has received more and more votes. The U.N.'s refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations of the oil-for-food program could inspire sufficient wrath in Congress to finally authorize withdrawal from the U.N.
Congress could stop short of withdrawal and stop all funding of the U.N., pending a congressional review. Each U.N. agency should be reviewed for relevance and benefit before receiving U.S. funding. Many, if not all, U.N. agencies would find it difficult to demonstrate a benefit to the U.S.
Should these U.N. agencies be subjected to a congressional review, what would quickly become apparent is the presence of a comprehensive agenda. While each U.N. agency is responsible for implementing specific programs within its particular jurisdiction, each program and every agency is working from the same playbook – toward a comprehensive agenda.
The ultimate goal of the agenda is to transform the system of governance for the entire world, regardless of the type of government in any nation. The new system of governance is best described as "Administrative Governance." In this system, public policy is made by professionals, with input from the people only through approved and duly accredited non-government organizations.
Public policy is then "administered" by participating governments – regardless of the type of government – through treaties and agreements arranged and enforced by the U.N. Implementation of public policy is policed by the same NGOs that helped shape the policies.
The United Nations then becomes the supreme policy-making body. Each participating nation – by treaty or agreement – becomes an administrative unit. In the United States, each state becomes an administrative unit of the federal government, and each local government becomes an administrative unit of the state.
This new system of governance has arrived and is known as Agenda 21 – the rulebook for sustainable development. There are no black helicopters or blue-helmeted troops. But the agenda is real, just the same.
The U.N.'s agenda and its corruption provide ample reasons for the United States to withdraw from this institution. Withdrawal should be a priority for the new Congress.
This would be wonderful!
You've got that right!
bump
Let's DO IT!
We are probably stuck with the United Nations at least for the short term. The first thing the U.S. should do is to require half the U.N.'s operating budget to be levied equally among the member states. That is, each member state would have to pay the same basic amount to remain a member of the U.N. That would cause many of these faux (sorry, I could resist using a frog word to describe them) states with a few million inhabitants from gumming up the machinery of the U.N. The other half would be paid by the wealthiest nations on a per capita basis. That would require many of the rich nations such as Saudi Arabia (yeah, I know it is a family with a flag) to pay it's "fair" share or get out of gumming up things in the general assembly.
Amen.
I think it would be instructive to compare and contrast the extrasoverign experience with the EU (and its Brussels beauracrat governance efficiency - as a puppet of France) and with the UN (also with France wanting to have control). Then we could have a rational discussion before deep-sixing the UN as it is currently constructed and headed.
I love the idea, but these bills will never see the light of the President's desk. There are wwwwaaayyyy too many who bow at the table of the un, to let it pass. Hitlery will launch a fillabuster to save the un for the commie husband! I say that we get together and burn the un to ground and demand by torch light that they leave the country asap!
One can only wish.
I agree with you! That is my I suggested a torchlight march on them! maybe then they will get the idea.
It's high time they are served with notice to vacate. Get them and their arrogant diplomatic immunity out of the U.S.A. ASAP.
The gether up the torches, get some kerosene & matches! Gather the masses let the march begin!
From MY perspective, I'd get the F'n out of the UN, give an executive order that the building be evacuated, and bring in the Texas outfit and implode the dopey building (which is damn near falling down). IMOHO. The USA has always done the "heavy lifting" supporting that worthless organization.
Well seing how the whole concept of the UN is completely UNAmerican...I'll vote for that!!!
bang on the money.
two options:
1. introduce a requirement that EVERY country in the UN who wants to stay must upload standards of freedom, democracy and religious freedom, kicking out 24 of the 25 islamic nations and many more like zimbabwe and north korea.
and when that fails (hear the french whining, NO NO its not FAIR to insist UN members upload religious freedoms!) and when that fails immediately halt all funding.
The stupid organization will fall to its knees without 25% of its funding.
and then negotiate a new treaty with all the democratic free nations of the world... uk, australia, canada, india... shit there's not many is there!
seriously we dont need the UN and we sure as hell shouldnt be PAYING for this shit.
Get US out of UN.
I'm all for a huge letter-writing and non-stop telephone calls to our reps to see that the UN is history, at least in the US location. I want us out of that disreputable organization before the end of 2005. Let's go after them Freepers!
Good article on the reasons to be against the UN. He doesn't cover the biggest one in my mind, which is that the UN legitimizes tyrants in the eyes of their people and makes regime change/democratization more difficult.
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.