We must end U.S. involvement in this corrupt organization of tyrants, socialists, and America-haters. Get the United Nations out of the U.S. and get the U.S. out of the United Nations!
Posted on 02/05/2005 2:03:10 PM PST by CzarChasm
No sarcasm today.
I find I can do very little to help this country - my own petty but unignorable problems seem to occupy too much of my time. What little I can do seems so trivial, but if it is multiplied by the power of Freepdom then perhaps the trickle will become streams, and the streams will become a river, and the river will wash some of the corruption from our shores. Of course, I am referring to the United Nations.
Below is the text of a letter I just sent to my Representative; I encourage others of like mind to do the same.
The United Nations has, in my opinion, become a risk to the national security of the United States. Their policies are anti-freedom, anti-science, and anti-American. We cannot in good conscience support this corrupt institution any longer. Therefore I urge you to strongly support house bill H.R.1146 [Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas] to withdraw the United States from the United Nations, and remove the United Nations' presence from the United States.
Democratic republics do not need socialist oversight, nor do they need the permission of those that sleep with the enemy before engaging in acts of defense or self-preservation.
The original purpose of the United Nations was to prevent wars, to stop genocide, to act proactively to head off conflicts between nations and peoples before they reach the point of crisis. In these endeavors the United Nations has gone beyond mere failure, and has become part of the problem. They have prevented no wars, instead their unwillingness to confront evil has emboldened it. They have prevented no genocides, rather they have stood idly by on multiple occasions, even with advance warning, and done nothing; after the fact they have still done nothing. In the latest incident the after-the-fact report would not even acknowledge the genocide that had already occurred. In the matter of international conflict, the United Nations has excelled - at making money from the situation, not from rectifying it.
Enough! Get rid of it before we wake up one day to find it ruling over us with guns and taxes of its own.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
---CC---
I think the last straw for me was the Iraq election. I saw Iraqis dancing in the streets, thanking the US and President Bush over and over again for freeing them from tyranny. There was not a blue helmet in sight anywhere.
Without the UN, this could have happened 14 years ago. With the UN in charge, this never would have happened at all.
To write your congressman, go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Good letter, and I agree with you. Thanks for the link.
We must end U.S. involvement in this corrupt organization of tyrants, socialists, and America-haters. Get the United Nations out of the U.S. and get the U.S. out of the United Nations!
This an excellent idea whose time has not yet come. Pulling out of the U(seless)N will have to be done gradually. An excellent place to start would be to expel the U.N. headquarters from the United States.
You voted for AL GORE????!!!!
Never heard of L.O.S.T. [and neither has Google, apparently ;-)]
Go to google, type in www.law of sea treaty
I hit over 11,000 on it. There are over 50,000.
Go to: http://www.getusout.org/un/index.html . Then go lobby at http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm .
The United Nations is a corrupt disgrace and it is time for the USA to WITHDRAW from and defund the United Nations. Please tell your senators, congressmen and everyone you know to support Representative Ron Paul’s bill H.R. 1146 which would WITHDRAW the USA from the United Nations, prohibit US funds going to the UN and prohibit US troops serving under UN command. H.R 1146 is the American Sovereignty Restoration Act.
Law of the Sea Treaty Results 1 - 10 of about 723,000 for law sea treaty
The Bush Administration has expressed support for ratification of the Treaty. However, many of former President Reagan's original objections still hold true today and many of the so-called national security advantages are already enjoyed. ... The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N ... on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to ..
Sounds like global welfare / communism to me.
The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries--as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.
National Security Issues
Under the Treaty, a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are established. This sets a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a country may claim jurisdiction. However, innocent passage--including non-wartime activities of military ships--is protected. Even without the Treaty, these boundaries, and the precedent of safe passage, are protected under multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law. Additionally, given the United States' naval superiority, few countries would attempt to deny safe passage. However, under the Treaty, intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.
Environmental and Economic Issues
Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States' provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation's concerns before the U.N. agency.
Reagan's Objections
2. Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world's supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
3. The third--and still valid--objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
Carrie E. Donovan is Production and Operations Coordinator in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Selected Studies
Marjorie Ann Browne, "The Law of the Sea Convention and U.S. Policy," Congressional Research Service Issue Brief for Congress No. IB95010, updated January 15, 2004.
John Luddy, "The Law of the Sea Treaty: Unwise and Unnecessary," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 386, August 10, 1994.
Roger A Brooks, "The Law of the Sea Treaty: Can the U.S. Afford to Sign?" Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 188, June 7, 1982.
Guy M. Hicks, "The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Review of the Issues," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 138, April 28, 1981.
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.